Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BUDE-STRATTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [Lords]

To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

SCOTTISH AMERICAN INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED ORDER CONFIRMATION

Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure
(Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to the Scottish American Investment Company Limited, presented by Mr. Maclay; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 105.]

PETITIONS (HOUSING)

Mr. Frank Allaun: With your permission Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present a Petition. The contents of this Petition:
Sheweth that the undersigned are deeply concerned by the terrible housing conditions; the long waiting lists; overcrowding; houses without a bath, hot water, or inside toilet; and the difficulties of young married couples.
Because the Government have doubled interest rates, the local authorities' task has been made even more difficult. In addition, the high interest rates have forced councils to raise rents.
The Petition concludes:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that cheap loans to councils be restored to build more houses to let at reasonable rents.
And you Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
This Petition has been signed by many thousands of my constituents. A token number of signatures is being presented

to the House and a very much larger number to the Minister himself.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. C. Royle: At this time I do not desire to keep the House away from Questions, but I desire to present a Petition from my constituents in Salford, West on very similar lines to the Petition presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun). In his brief speech my hon. Friend told the House what the Petition contains, and the reasons for bringing it to the House. I support his short speech with enthusiasm, and I desire to present to the House a Petition on behalf of my constituents in Salford, West.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUDICIAL AND LEGAL APPOINTMENTS, SCOTLAND

Dr. A. Thompson: asked the Lord Advocate what judicial and legal appointments are made by him, or on his recommendation.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. William Grant): The following appointments are made by the Lord Advocate:

Advocates Depute.
Legal Secretaries and Parliamentary Draftsmen in the Lord Advocate's Department.
Solicitor to the Lord Advocate.
Standing Junior Counsel in Scotland to Government Departments.
Crown Agent and Crown Office staff.
Procurators Fiscal.
Procurators Fiscal Depute.
Clerks and Assistants to full-time Procurators Fiscal.
Members of the Scottish Law Reform Committee.

The following appointments are made on the nomination or recommendation of the Lord Advocate:

Solicitors in Scotland to Government Departments which are not served by the Solicitor to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The Principal Clerk of Justiciary.
The Accountant of Court.
The Auditor of the Court of Session.
Clerks of the Peace and Interim Clerks of the Peace.

Lords Ordinary in the Court of Session, Sheriffs and Sheriffs-Substitute


are appointed by the Crown on the recommendation of the Secretary of State for Scotland. In these cases it is the practice for the Lord Advocate to submit a name to the Secretary of State for his consideration.
The Lord Advocate also, when asked to do so by the Departments concerned, submits names of persons who have suitable legal qualifications to take public local inquiries and the like and to act as chairmen or members of certain committees, councils and tribunals.

Dr. Thompson: May I first congratulate the Lord Advocate on making constitutional history by being the first Lord Advocate in the history of Parliament to have an independent place at the Dispatch Box and not to stand there as an adjunct of the Secretary of State for Scotland?
Is he aware of the growing concern in Edinburgh, in the law profession and in the universities among law professors, that these legal appointments, many of which he has described, are increasingly dependent on political patronage, a system rather akin to the American appointment system? Can he give us an assurance that, in future, to allay these suspicions, appointments will be made on the basis of legal merit rather than membership of the Tory Party?

The Lord Advocate: I am afraid that the hon. Member's supplementary question is based on a false hypothesis. Of the fifteen judges in the Court of Session, only four held legal office previously and one was appointed by a Government of different political colour. Of the remaining nine, only two ever stood as political candidates and I can recollect three cases in recent years of appointments of sheriff substitutes, made on the recommendations of my predecessor, of gentlemen who were former or at that time Labour candidates.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Imported Electrical Appliances (Wiring)

Mr. Whitlock: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to ensure that all imported electrical appliances are wired in accordance with the British Standards Colour Code.

Mr. Darling: asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress is being made towards the adoption of the European code of coloured cables for domestic electrical appliances; and whether he will either prohibit the importation of foreign appliances or introduce regulations to impose informative markings on all such appliances, until such time as an international agreement is concluded.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers): My right hon. Friend understands that there are good prospects of final agreement on a new European standard during this month. He has no powers at present to impose such prohibitions or regulations as the hon. Member suggests; the recommendations of the Committee on Consumer Protection in this and other respects are now under consideration by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Whitlock: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary realise that he appears to be shockingly complacent about this matter? Does he not realise that the interim Report of the Molony Committee suggests that the present danger is particularly grave and that at least one fatality and some near misses have already occurred because of the difference in the wiring of these appliances compared with our own? Does he not know that accidents do not arise from misuse or carelessness or inexpert tinkering with devices but because of the genuine confusion caused by this wiring? Will he treat the matter as extremely urgent and not await the international agreement of which he spoke?

Mr. Rodgers: The forcefulness of the Committee's remarks on this topic is recognised, but the matter cannot be considered in isolation from the recommendations on general legislation. The hon. Member cannot have heard me correctly when I said that it was hoped that these international negotiations would be completed this month.

Mr. Darling: If it is impossible for the Board of Trade to make importers put informative markings on the equipment they import until agreement on


European standards is reached, is it possible for the Board of Trade to have consultations with the importers, or their trade associations, to try to get some satisfactory voluntary arrangements about informative markings?

Mr. Rodgers: That is a very good suggestion and I should like to look into it.

Consumer Protection

Dr. A. Thompson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider setting up a national council for consumer protection and information.

Mr. J. Rodgers: My right hon. Friend will consider this possibility in the light of the advice which the Committee on Consumer Protection eventually offers him.

Dr. Thompson: While thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for that reply, may I urge on him the need, with the onset of commercial television, to appreciate that consumers are in ever-increasing danger of being misled by the kind of advertising pressure to which they are subjected? Will he carefully bear in mind the present conditions?

Mr. Rodgers: I will certainly do that.

Mrs. Slater: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how long his right hon. Friend is likely to be before finally considering the recommendations of the interim Report?

Mr. Rodgers: No. Conversations between officials in the Home Department and my Department are taking place.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take on the main recommendation of the Molony Committee on Consumer Protection, contained in paragraph 43 of its Interim Report to him

Mr. J. Rodgers: My right hon. Friend cannot yet add to the reply which he gave to the hon. Member for Hornsey (Lady Gammans) on 27th April.

Mr. Goodhart: I realise that these consultations take time. Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a widespread desire that the Interim Report should be implemented as quickly as possible? How

long does he expect that the conversations between his Department and the Home Office will continue? As a first step, will the Government support the Oil Burners (Standards) Bill which is to come before this House?

Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend will appreciate that consultations with a number of interests and a good deal of careful thought are needed before the detailed implications of the Committee's main recommendations—for legislation giving general powers to make regulations—can be assessed. We shall proceed as speedily as possible.

Ethanediol (Anti-dumping Duty)

Mr. R. Edwards: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) the nature of representations he has received from the chemical industry for an increased import duty on ethanediol;
(2) what representations he has received opposing the application which has been made to him for an increase in import duties on ethanediol.

Mr. J. Rodgers: The United Kingdom manufacturers of ethanediol have applied for the imposition of an antidumping duty on imports of this material from the United States on the grounds that it is being sold here at dumped prices and that this is causing them material injury. Those interested have been given an opportunity, in accordance with normal practice, of submitting comments to my Department in confidence and these are now being examined.

Mr. Edwards: I hope that when examining this application, the Parliamentary Secretary will bear in mind the fact that until this year the three applicants were very large importers of this product from the United States of America and that an American firm has started a plant in this country. I hope that anti-dumping legislation will not be used in the way suggested in a trade war between two American combines to the disadvantage of the British consumer.

Mr. Rodgers: The application is being examined against three criteria which are laid down in the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957. They are, first, whether dumping is taking place, secondly, whether it is causing or threatening material injury to the


United Kingdom industry and, if so, thirdly, whether an anti-dumping duty would be in the national interest.

Advance Factory, Coatbridge

Mr. Dempsey: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to secure a tenant for the new advance factory at Coatbridge, who will provide employment for large numbers.

Mr. J. Rodgers: This factory has been brought to the attention of many industrialists who have consulted the Board of Trade about their expansion plans. All our regional offices know of the factory and mention it to enquirers; several have been shown around.

Mr. Dempsey: As the Parliamentary Secretary seems to have difficulty about rinding a suitable tenant for this factory, will he consider introducing the concessional rents which apply in Northern Ireland, with a view to attracting industry to the area, particularly the factory concessional rents directing or stimulating public enterprise to come to the rescue of this part of Scotland?

Mr. Rodgers: The question of concessional rents is altogether another matter. The factory is still under construction and it is not expected to be completed until August. I hope that by then we will have found a tenant.

Employment, Scotland

Mr. Dempsey: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take to fulfil his promise to provide 25,000 extra jobs in Scotland during the lifetime of this Parliament; and what proposals he has to provide employment for the remaining 67,000 unemployed.

Mr. J. Rodgers: It is now estimated that from factory buildings or extensions recently completed, under construction, and approved but not yet started, over 25,000 new jobs will be provided. I appreciate there is still a long way to go, but this is I think a satisfactory start.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that to tell us that there are 25,000 employment opportunities with 90,000 unemployed is most unsatisfactory? Will he take the necessary steps

to stimulate the drive in order to end Scotland's unemployment problems?

Mr. Rodgers: We will do our best to stimulate expansion in Scotland. I point out that unemployment in Scotland has gone down from 91,000—the figure the hon. Gentleman has in mind—to 85,000 last month.

Mr. T. Fraser: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that those jobs which he hopes will be provided through industrial buildings which are to be completed in the next few years are extra jobs? Will not many thousands, if not all of them, be in the room of jobs which will disappear in the same period?

Mr. Rodgers: Some will be replacements in the sense of new creations, but the question is misleading in implying that all these jobs will come through the application of the I.D.C. policy, leaving out of account any improvements which there might be in the tourist industry, for instance, in certain service industries, in offices and so on.

Industrial Development Certificates, Bishop Auckland

Mr. Boyden: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many industrial development certificates have been issued in the Bishop Auckland district since 7th March, 1960.

Mr. J. Rodgers: One industrial development certificate was issued for this area from 7th March to 5th May, 1960.

Mr. Boyden: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that 2,000 of my constituents are unemployed and have been for a considerable time owing to the contraction in the coal industry and in the railway industry in my constituency, and does not he think that his Answer is totally unsatisfactory?

Mr. Rodgers: More remains to be done, I agree. In addition to the recent issue, three industrial building schemes are under construction and the expected total employment from the four schemes, one of which is Government-financed, should be about 470 jobs.

Coal Exports

Mr. Boyden: asked the President of the Board of Trade what Governments he has approached to treat British coal exports fairly since 1st March, 1960.

Mr. J. Rodgers: We are in touch with the authorities in Belgium and Federal Germany regarding improved facilities for the import of United Kingdom coal into those countries.

Mr. Boyden: Cannot the hon. Gentleman tackle the problem of exports by agreement with Poland and also exports to Scandinavia much more energetically? Does not he realise that this way of developing trade would be far better for my constituency than the issue of I.D.Cs?

Mr. Rodgers: As a matter of commercial policy we do not favour inter-Governmental arrangements with Poland, or any other country, to share markets or fix prices. Such agreements are not in our general interest as an exporting country.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that what happened in the 1930s is happening again in the 1960s, and that Polish coal is being dumped at less than cost? Is he saying that the Government are having no discussions with the Polish Government about that situation?

Mr. Rodgers: I have already said that discussions with various Governments are taking place.

Mr. Griffiths: Is Poland included?

Newcast Foundries Ltd., Newcastle-under-Lyme (Letter)

Mr. Swingler: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has considered the letter sent to him on 26th April by Newcast Foundries Ltd., Silver-dale, Newcastle-under-Lyme, concerning factors jeopardising their production programme; and what reply he sent.

Mr. J. Rodgers: The writer of the letter has been informed that the release of soldiers is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War.

Mr. Swingler: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, if he read the letter carefully, he would realise that this is the general problem of the call-up of apprentices on the completion of their apprenticeship? As he represents the Department concerned with promoting the export trade and maintaining the level of industrial production, would he have a word with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour in order to make strong repre-

sentations to him that where the call-up of an apprentice on the completion of his apprenticeship will interfere with important production the Minister of Labour should do something to stop it?

Mr. Rodgers: The National Service of these two men was deferred. The deferment came to an end and they joined the Army on 16th April, 1959, and 7th January, 1960, respectively. The general arguments in the letter do not convince my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that there is any need to intervene with the Secretary of State or the Minister of Labour.

Milk Powder and Condensed Milk (Imports)

Mr. Prior: asked the President of the Board of Trade the percentage increase or decrease in the quantity and cost of imports of milk powder and condensed milk in 1959, as compared with 1958.

Mr. J. Rodgers: The percentage increases in imports of milk powder and condensed and evaporated milk, were 71 per cent. and 136 per cent. by quantity and 80 per cent. and 133 per cent. by value.

Mr. Prior: Does my hon. Friend realise that these figures are not very hepful to the Milk Marketing Board which is trying to sell more milk in this country at a time when more milk is being produced? Will he look at this matter to see whether we can reintroduce a quota such as existed before 1959?

Mr. Rodgers: Milk production in this country is a subject more for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Industrial Projects, Durham

Mr. Grey: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what effect the new financial restrictions will have on the number of industrial projects he expects to be started in the county of Durham during the next twelve months;
(2) in view of the new financial restrictions imposed by the Government, what special measures he proposes to take to ensure continuance of his plans to provide in the County of


Durham over 2,500,000 square feet of new factory space, and over 4,000 new jobs.

Mr. J. Rodgers: There is no evidence that the recently announced credit controls will adversely affect the industrial projects which are in hand or in prospect for the administrative County of Durham. According to the firms concerned, these should provide at lease 10,000 new jobs during the next few years.

Mr. Grey: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary is not trying to fob us off with that reply. May I ask whether he has had consultations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer concerning the possible insulating of the whole of the north-east area from the full effects of the credit squeeze, because he knows as well as anyone that the real intention behind the credit squeeze is to do exactly the opposite of what he says he intends to do? Is he aware of the urgency of the need for such consultations before matters get worse? Is he aware that, even on the present basis, we understand that there is every likelihood that within the next fourteen years 27,500 people will leave the County of Durham in search of work— and that is quite a lot of people? Does he realise that, if he has not had these consultations already, the reply he has given is a complete mockery?

Mr. Rodgers: I am aware of the serious situation in the north-east of England. I should point out that when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced the recent credit controls he said that these, together with the Budget, would act as a check on the tendencies making for overstrain in the economy and would not prevent the continuance of a sound and steady expansion within the resources of the country. We are trying to divert more to the export field rather than to over-stimulate home demand.

Local Employment Act

Mr. Spriggs: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications he has received to date for financial assistance under the Local Employment Act; which localities are concerned; what is the estimated financial assistance given up to the latest

convenient date; and, where loans have been made, what is the sum involved and the interest charges.

Mr. J. Rodgers: Of the 134 applications now under consideration, the five which are for building grants under Section 3 of the Act are from England. Of the 129 applications for grants and loans under Section 4, 38 are from England, 22 from Wales and 69 from Scotland. So far offers of assistance totalling £56,000 have been made in three cases, the terms and conditions of which are confidential between the applicant and the Board of Trade.

Mr. Spriggs: I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to confide to the House the interest rates charged today, because I think it is in the interests of the House as a whole that this confidential information should be given to Parliament.

Mr. Rodgers: These negotiations between industry and the Government are confidential transactions and have always been so regarded. This raises an important point of principle. We have never divulged, for example, the names of those in receipt of agricultural subsidies, and, for that matter, the principle is applied right through all the schemes for Government assistance. Were we to reveal the amounts given and the terms on which they are given or loaned, that might operate against the effective implementation of the Local Employment Act and frustrate the purpose of making the loans.

Mr. Jay: Although there is a good argument against giving exact details of individual transactions with the names of firms, is there any reason why the Parliamentary Secretary should not give the average rate of interest, for instance, of all the loans which we have been granted without giving any names of firms?

Mr. Rodgers: I will bear that point in mind, but, as I have indicated, we intend to lay an annual report in general terms before the House.

Distribution of Industry (Industrial Development Certificates)

Mr. Ross: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is satisfied that his powers in respect of industrial


development certificates are adequate for carrying out Government policy of obtaining a proper balance and distribution of industry throughout the country; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. J. Rodgers: Yes, Sir. Her Majesty's Government's policy remains as I described it in the debate on 23rd February, and my right hon. Friend does not think it necessary to make a further statement.

Mr. Ross: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that policy was criticised then, and since then events have been such that there is considerable concern in areas where unemployment is high that new industrial development is being allowed in areas which are relatively prosperous industrially? Will he adopt a policy of much more positive control, as suggested by the Scottish T.U.C., in respect of I.D.C.s and give greater priority to areas of greater need?

Mr. Rodgers: I explained during the debate that we divide the whole country roughly—

Mr. Ross: Roughly?

Mr. Rodgers: —into three areas. In one area we try to steer industry by means of I.D.C.s and Government help which is available. In another area, we try to prevent any industrial development taking place except in the most exceptional circumstances; and then there are the "grey" areas where industrial development certificates will normally be granted. Each case is considered on its merits.

Mr. Mitchison: Such as Maidenhead?

Industrial Development, Scotland

Mr. T. Fraser: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the estimated effect of the recently announced credit restrictions on industrial development in Scotland.

Mr. J. Rodgers: There is no evidence that the recently announced credit controls will have any adverse effect on industrial development in Scotland.

Mr. Fraser: Will the Parliamentary Secretary say what is the purpose of credit restriction? Did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer make clear in his announcement that the purpose was

to check overstrain on the economy. Surely that was to curb industrial development? As it is generally assumed that this would be the effect, why on earth was it necessary and for what purpose was it necessary to impose any restriction in Scotland? I thought that the Parliamentary Secretary was anxious to stimulate industrial development in Scotland.

Mr. Rodgers: I thought I made clear that there was no question of controls to prevent the continuance of sound and steady expansion within our resources, and that any fall in home demand, whether in England or in Scotland, could be offset by a rise in exports.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the Parliamentary Secretary recollect the booklet which was recently issued by his Department entitled "Expanding Industry"? Will he relate the Answer he has just given to the terms of loans in that document? Are those loans now to be varied and variable? Are some to be treated in one way and some in another and, if so, is not that unfair?

Mr. Rodgers: I think that is another question.

Ford Motor Company (Industrial Development Certificate)

Mr. T. Fraser: asked the President of the Board of Trade why, having regard to the provisions of Section 14 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, as modified by Part II of the Local Employment Act, 1960, he has granted an industrial development certificate to the Ford Motor Company for a new tractor assembly plant at Basildon, Essex, costing £10 million.

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) why he had no consultations with the Development Corporation of Glenrothes, Fife, before sanctioning the Ford development in Basildon;
(2) what representations he made to the Ford Motor Car Company to induce it to undertake its proposed expansion in one of the Scottish new towns.

Mr. Bence: asked the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he had with the corporation of the new town of Cumbernauld, Dunbartonshire,


before deciding to grant an industrial development certificate to the Ford Motor Company to build a £10 million factory in the new town of Basildon, Essex.

Mr. Hannan: asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent, before deciding to permit the building by the Ford Motor Company of a new £10 million tractor factory at Basildon, Essex, he first consulted with the Minister of Labour on the sources from which it was proposed to attract the additional labour likely to be required to man the new factory at Basildon and the extended works at Dagenham.

Mr. Lawson: asked the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he had with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland before making his decision to grant an industrial development certificate for the construction by the Ford Motor Company of a £10 million tractor factory at Basildon in Essex.

Mrs. Hart: asked the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he had with the corporation of the new town of East Kilbride in Lanarkshire before deciding to grant an industrial development certificate to the Ford Motor Company to build a £10 million tractor factory in the new town of Basildon in Essex.

Mr. McInnes: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will, in view of the abnormal unemployment in Scotland, indicate the circumstances that led him to grant an industrial development certificate to the Ford Motor Company for a new tractor factory at Basildon.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the President of the Board of Trade which sites were drawn to the attention of the Ford Motor Company when consideration was being given by the firm to the building of its proposed £10 million tractor plant.

Mr. Small: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of new jobs likely to be created at the Ford Motor works in Dagenham as a result of the extensions and developments to be carried through at those works in consequence of the company's concentration of tractor production at Basildon.

Mr. Gourlay: asked the President of the Board of Trade the estimated number of persons likely to be employed at the new £10 million tractor factory to be erected by the Ford Motor Company at Basildon in Essex.

Mr. J. Rodgers: With permission, I will answer Questions Nos. 22, 27, 28, 30, 34, 36, 37—[Interruption.]—39, 53, 54, and 55 together.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: There was so much noise that I could not hear the list of further Questions which the Minister enumerated. I ask the House to keep order.

Mr. Rodgers: The Questions 1 propose to answer together are Nos. 22, 27, 28, 30, 34, 36, 37, 39, 53, 54, and 55.

Mr. T. Fraser: On a point of order. The Parliamentary Secretary, like his right hon. Friend a week ago, said, "With permission", but is it not a contempt of this House and of hon. Members to attempt to give one Answer to a series of Questions which raise very different matters? It seems to us that it will be quite impossible to get proper information in reply to these Questions if only one Answer is given. Could not the Parliamentary Secretary be asked to answer each Question individually?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member was addressing me on a point of order, but I am afraid that the position is exactly the same as it was when I ruled on it on the last Scottish Questions day. No circumstance, as far as I know, has changed.

Mr. Lawson: On a point of order. These Questions cover a very wide range of subject matter. May I ask if you could rule that they should be taken at the end of Questions and that a special statement should be made on what in fact is a very large subject, so that we may have an opportunity much more fully to get answers to our varied Questions on this subject?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member can ask me with great courtesy to do that, but he knows I have no power to do anything of the kind.

Miss Herbison: Further to that point of order. What redress have we as Members of this House when a Minister informs us—

Mr. Hirst: Raise it in the Scottish Grand Committee.

Mr. Speaker: I should prefer it if hon. Members would address me one at a time.

Miss Herbison: In spite of foolish protests by hon. Members opposite who have no knowledge of the severity of unemployment in our country, I again ask what redress have we as ordinary Members of this House when a Minister proposes to answer a great many Questions together, Questions which raise very different points?

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Lady will remember that I was concerned about this and went into it on a parallel occasion. I am afraid the true answer, assuming that the Minister has prepared one Answer to all the Questions, is that if the Answer does not properly cover all the points in the several Questions then the unanswered parts should be subject to further questioning by hon. Members.

Mr. Hamilton: May I put a rather different, but, I think, related point? If you look at the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker, you will see that the next Question is put by an hon. Member from the North-East. If the Minister is allowed to answer generally a number of Questions, some of which in normal circumstances would not be reached, that will rule out the possibility of Questions relating to Durham being asked by hon. Members who are equally concerned with the unemployment problem. That could lead to some abuse on the part of Ministers. Could you think about some possible safeguards in the interests of hon. Members who put down Questions with a great prospect in ordinary circumstances of getting them answered orally?

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the point. If I saw anything which looked like an abuse, I should feel concerned to consider it. I hope I may, with courtesy, point out that the best way of getting Questions answered is not to have a repetition of Rulings I made a short time ago on this point.

Mr. Manuel: I wonder if you could consider one aspect of this matter? If we are to have a recurrence of the situation in which ten or a dozen Questions are answered by a Minister in this way, will it not become farcical? What is the use of having an Order Paper? Would it not be better to have merely one Question with ten or a dozen names attached to it? Will you consider that with a view to protecting the rights of hon. Members?

Mr. Speaker: I shall certainly protect hon. Members' rights if I conceive that they are being in any way abused, in accordance with the practice of the House, but I do not think that hon. Members' rights are being abused.

Mr. Hector Hughes: If the convenience of the House is to be considered —and it is that more than the wish of the Minister to answer a number of Questions together that we should consider—would it not be more convenieat when a Minister decides to take this course to answer all these Questions at the end of Question Time, so that there may be an opportunity for all the hon. Members who have put down the relevant Questions to put supplementary questions without impeding those hon. Members who have Questions later in the list?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think the hon. and learned Member was here—I cannot remember—when I pointed out last time that the practical alternative when refusing the Minister permission would be that he should repeat the same Answer over and over again. I really do not think that would help very much.

Mr. C. Osborne: Have we poor English Members no rights at all? In view of the fact that there are at least four times more English than Scottish Members, could you not protect the point of view and right of English Members who want to hear the Prime Minister?

Mr. Speaker: My view is that the interests of all hon. Members would best be protected if we ceased to have further points of order.

Mr. Hoy: I do not wish to raise a point of order—[Interruption.]—I shall not take that from the hon. Member opposite—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr. Hoy: I was replying to a remark from the other side of the House, but I wish to remind the Chair that we are entitled to protection from the impertinent remarks of a young fellow on the other side of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear any remark. No doubt it was loud enough, but I was wondering what the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) was about to ask.

Mr. Hoy: I wished to ask a simple question to make certain whether the Parliamentary Secretary included Question No. 33 in the list.

Mr. Rodgers: Question No. 33 was not included; it gets a separate Answer.

Mr. Short: As a "Sudeten Scot", may I put a further point? You said, Mr. Speaker, that if these Questions were not answered together the Minister would have to repeat the same Answer. May I point out that the only common factor in these Questions is that they mention the Ford Motor Company, but they deal with entirely different points. Each Question, so far as I can see, deals with a completely different point and there would be no question of the Minister having to repeat the same Answer.

Mr. Speaker: It is my fault for venturing to use some phrase to try to get on, but I think we had better hear the Answer. If it is incomplete and unsatisfactory, hon. Members can deal with it in due course.

Mr. Rodgers: An industrial development certificate has not yet been issued as negotiations between the Ford Motor Company and the Board of Trade have not yet been completed.
Subject to their satisfactory conclusion, my right hon. Friend intends to grant a certificate in order to enable Ford's to secure a substantial increase in production of both cars and tractors without any permanent increase in the labour force at present employed in the Dagenham-Basildon area. He also has in mind that all the expansion of the company's output that does require an increase over the present labour force will be concentrated in the Merseyside area.
My right hon. Friend's proposed action is thus fully consistent with the Government's general policy on location of industry, which is to secure increases in production in the congested areas where this can be done without increases in the labour force, and to steer expansion schemes requiring additional labour to areas of high unemployment whenever this is practicable.

Mr. T. Fraser: Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House whether the Ford Motor Company has made a similar promise in the past, when an I.D.C. has been granted, that the labour force would not be increased? Will he tell us what has been the change in the labour force since the I.D.C. was granted on an earlier occasion? Will he tell the House whether, in compiling his increase of 25,000 jobs in Scotland over the next five years, he did not add the figure for the number of workers expected to be employed in other new establishments, whereas here he is claiming that the number of workers to be employed in 1 million additional square feet of factory space will not lead to an increase in employment in the area? Will he tell us how he reconciles those two statements? Is it not a fact that under Section 14 of the Town and Country Planning Act the President of the Board of Trade is obliged to take into account the better distribution of the industry of the country as a whole before he issues an industrial development certificate? Does not the issue of a certificate here run counter to all that was said by the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend during the passage of the Local Employment Act?

Mr. Rodgers: In answer to the first part of the question, I 'have no knowledge that any previous figures quoted by the Ford Motor Company have proved to be inaccurate. I would point out that the increase in employment at Basildon will be offset by a similar reduction in employment at Dagenham, and there should therefore be no overall increase in the district.

Mr. Hamilton: What remedies lie in the hands of the Department if, consequent to the granting of the I.D.C. on the basis that there will be no increase in the numbers employed, there is in fact an increase in the numbers


employed? Is there any machinery which the hon. Member can use to safeguard the interests of such places as Scotland?

Mr. Rodgers: There may be a temporary increase during the transitional period, but it is expected to stabilise at the present figure in that area. The only sanction we have, if the Ford Motor Company does not keep its promise, is to take account of that when it applies for future I.D.C.s.

Mr. Bence: I understand from the hon. Member's statement that the I.D.C. has not been issued. He has not answered my Question, No. 30. I asked whether he had consulted the Cumbernauld new town and the boards before issuing an I.D.C. and had pointed out to the Ford Motor Company the desirability of establishing new industries in the new town of Cumbernauld. Did the President of the Board of Trade consult the Cumbernauld new town when he was considering industrial expansion?

Mr. Rodgers: We cannot consult every local authority in the country or every new town before granting I.D.Cs. The decision to approve the Ford package plan, if I may call it that, as a whole was taken by Her Majesty's Government as a whole, and the President of the Board of Trade acted in concert with his colleagues. There is, therefore, no question of his having overlooked the interests of Scotland, of not having acted in concert with the Minister of Labour or of not having taken into consideration the views of the Minister of Transport.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Hannan.

Mr. Hannan: Question No. 34.

Mr. Speaker: No. I was calling the hon. Member to ask a supplementary question.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: On a point of order.

Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order. Before you come to the next Question, Mr. Speaker, may I put it to you that you indicated that you might consider the practice of answering a large number of Questions together and the possibility of its being abused in certain circumstances? May I respectfully

suggest that it would be of help to the House as a whole if you would consider the point and indicate on what grounds you considered that to be the case?

Mr. Speaker: I would rather not have a shot at it now—

Mr. Mitchison: Not now.

Mr. Speaker: —because there might be a large number of hypothetical circumstances. I was seeking to allow supplementary questions to be asked by those hon. Members whose Questions were comprised in this Answer.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: May I make a point of order before I ask a supplementary question? My Question has not been answered, as the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) has not been answered, either. If you look at the Order Paper more closely, Mr. Speaker, you will see that a number of Questions which have apparently been included in this comprehensive embrace have in fact not specifically been answered. Therefore, I am merely rising, in being called to put a supplementary question, to ask my Question. Surely it is very much against the interests of the House that I should have to rise to ask the same thing twice.

Mr. Rodgers: In the discussions which my right hon. Friend and I had with the Ford Motor Company, obviously we discussed all the various attractions of the sites available in all the development districts.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Which sites?

Mr. Lawson: We do not find these answers of any help. May I put this question to the Parliamentary Secretary? How is it that if the B.M.C., which is to build a tractor factory in the Lothians to cost £8 million, is to provide 6,500 jobs, the factory to be built at Basildon to cost £10 million is not to provide any additional jobs at all?

Mr. Rodgers: There is a redeployment of resources within the present labour force.

Mrs. Hart: In view of the doubts expressed on this side of the House, will the Minister tell us how it is possible


for such a large amount of money as is to be spent on the factory to provide no additional jobs? Will he consider giving us a full account within a very short period of the method by which the Ford Motor Company proposes to make this possible without further employment? In addition, since he has not answered my Question, either, about consultation with the new town of East Kilbride, may I ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that the regional offices of the Board of Trade are fully aware of the immense difficulties of the new towns in Scotland, with their large populations of young people and with little prospect of finding employment for them? Is he satisfied that the attention of industrialists is being adequately drawn to their needs?

Mr. Rodgers: I am perfectly satisfied that the Controller for Scotland is well aware of all the factors which the hon. Lady has brought to my attention. I am afraid that the details of the Ford scheme must remain in the possession of the Ford Company. I cannot divulge them

Mr. Gourlay: With respect, the Minis-has not answered my Question, No. 55, either. It appears that he has tried to evade it. In his general Answer he said that the number of new jobs to be created at Basildon would be offset by the number of redundancies at Dagenham. He must, therefore, know how many new jobs are to be created and can therefore answer the Question.

Mr. Rodgers: I am afraid that I am not able to divulge that figure, although I know it

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: Is not my hon. Friend in error in talking about the Dagenham-Basildon area, since these two places are about twelve miles apart and Basildon by its very nature is a new town with a green belt around it? Is he not in error in talking as though they were the same area?

Mr. Bence: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The interests of all hon. Members depend on making progress and not noises instead.

Mr. Bence: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the collectivised Answer to a number of individual questions, I beg to give notice that I shall take the first opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Further to that point of order. I am sure that in a fair-minded way, quite apart from the context and the argument about all these Questions, you will recognise, at least on reflection, that there has been an abuse by the Minister of this comprehensive technique. I submit, at least for your consideration as a matter of order, that this should be looked into a little further with the interests of hon. Members such as myself in mind. After having tabled Questions in good faith, we are still without the answers to our specific Questions because of the comprehensive nature of the answering.

Mr. Speaker: I follow the point which the hon. Member puts to me, but I ruled about the substance of this quite a short time ago. I think that it was the last day on which Scottish Questions were taken.

Later—

Mr. Hannan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When Question No. 22 was being answered with other Questions, you were heard to call my name specially in connection with it. On going to the Table, I noticed that Question No. 34 was included with the other Questions that were answered. May I now be permitted to ask Question 34?

Mr. Speaker: Yes—for a curious reason. I thought the hon. Gentleman was rising to ask a supplementary question, and did, in fact, call him. He lost the opportunity because he did not understand, and I think that it is fair to allow him to ask it now. Mr. Hannan.

Mr. Hannan: Question 34—

Mr. Speaker: No, I am afraid that we shall get this wrong unless the hon. Gentleman conforms. He is really asking a supplementary question in respect of Question No. 34.

Mr. Hannan: Then did the Minister have consultations with the Minister of Labour? If he did, to what extent did he have those consultations, and with


what areas from which labour might be obtained were those consultations concerned?

Mr. Rodgers: As I explained in answer to another supplementary question, the decision to approve the Ford plan as a whole was taken by Her Majesty's Government as a whole, and, of course, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is a prominent member of the Government.

Miss Herbison: asked the President of the Board of Trade the dates when industrial development certificates to build the proposed £10 million Ford tractor factory at Basildon, Essex, were applied for and granted.

Mr. J. Rodgers: The I.D.C. for the new factory at Basildon was applied for on 21st April, 1960, but, as I have explained, it has not yet been issued. The company was informed when the Ford plans for Merseyside were announced that the Government approved of its development projects as a whole.

Miss Herbison: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that all the promises made during the General Election on new legislation and on a much stricter use of industrial development certificates now appear to Scottish people as just a great deal of eyewash? Is he not aware that if an industrial development certificate had been refused on a project such as this and the claims of Scotland had been put forcibly, that would indeed have shown to the people that perhaps there was some integrity in this Government? Is he aware that the people are now completely disillusioned and know that there was nothing in those election promises?

Mr. Rodgers: I think that the vehemence of Scottish Members has perhaps led us to forget what the Ford Motor Company is contributing in another development district. On Merseyside it is creating 8,500 new jobs in 1965. If all goes well, that is expected to increase to over 20,000 jobs there in 10 to 15 years. That is a very large contribution in that area. As for the country thinking our policy of steering industry is eyewash, they prefer our policy to the policy of nationalisation of the party opposite.

Ayclifie Trading Estate

Mr. Slater: asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the recent redundancies that have taken place on the Aycliffe Trading Estate; and what are the prospects of these people finding employment.

Mr. J. Rodgers: Yes, Sir. Some redundancies at particular factories on an estate of this size are from time to time inevitable. The ones the hon. Member seems to have in mind were at the time partially offset by increased employment in other factories on the estate, and during April there was an improvement in the total numbers employed there. Further increases are expected.

Mr. Slater: Is not the Minister aware that I have endeavoured, by Questions and by a speech on the Local Employment Act. to make plain my concern regarding the new town of Newton Aycliffe? What is being done to offset the many forms of redundancies which are taking place? On 4th May the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend informed me that 170 redundancies had taken place at two factories. The greater part of the residents in the new town at Newton Aycliffe depend upon the trading estate for employment.

Mr. Rodgers: As I understand it, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour said that there were about 170 redundancies on the Aycliffe Trading Estate this year and that at one of the two firms affected the reason was reorganisation and at the other firm it was a fall in demand for its products. The Ministry of Labour's figures on that occasion did not take into account the month of April, when there was an improvement.

Mr. Slater: asked the President of the Board of Trade what recent consultations his Department has had with firms wishing to come to the Aycliffe Trading Estate; and what are the prospects in this respect.

Mr. J. Rodgers: The Board of Trade is prepared to see more industry at Aycliffe and industrial development certificates would be granted to firms wishing to develop there. There has been only one recent inquiry.

Mr. Slater: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend informed me on 3rd November that there are 150 acres of land within this area? As so much application has been made for the direction of such firms as the Ford Motor Company etc. to various parts of the country, why cannot consideration be given so that these firms and others can be directed to come up to the North-East?

Mr. Rodgers: I should make it quite clear that I think that both sides of the House—certainly this side—do not seek powers to direct industry. We try to steer industry. We do not direct it. In the past two years, Government-financed extensions at Aycliffe have been authorised for 14 firms estimated to provide about 550 new jobs.

Collier Fleet, North-East Coast

Mr. Owen: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the collier fleet on the North-East Coast is seriously declining; and what action the Government will take to assist these displaced people to find other employment.

Mr. J. Rodgers: I am aware of the decline in coal shipments from the North-East. The Board of Trade will continue to encourage industrial development in those places where, for whatever the reason, the local unemployment problem justifies this.

Mr. Owen: This serious problem is a reflection of the general contraction in the coal-mining industry. Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the collier fleet has declined by 75 vessels over recent years and that the members are seeking on-shore employments? This accumulated evidence should speed him to recognise the need for priority in the provision of industry on the North-East Coast.

Mr. Rodgers: I sympathise with some of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman. He will be aware that Seaham is included in one of the development districts.

Mr. Marquand: Will the hon. Gentleman remember when considering this problem that Middlesbrough seamen as well as persons living further up the North-East Coast are involved? Will he look at that aspect?

Mr. Rodgers: Certainly, Sir.

Tomatoes (Import Duty)

Mrs. Hart: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has given further consideration to the applications for an increase in tariffs on imported tomatoes; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. J. Rodgers: My right hon. Friend announced certain increases in the import duty on fresh tomatoes in his reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) on 5th May. The Import Duties (General) (No. 5) Order, 1960, giving effect to these increases is being laid today and will come into operation on 16th May.

Industry (Research and Advertising)

Mr. Jay: asked the President of the Board of Trade how much has been spent by British industry on research and advertising, respectively, in recent years.

Mr. J. Rodgers: British industry is estimated to have spent around £300 million on scientific research and development in 1958. I know of no complete estimates of expenditure on market research. According to the Advertising Association, total expenditure in this country by all kinds of business in this country on advertising was £364 million in 1958 and £395 million in 1959.

Mr. Jay: Does the Parliamentary Secretary think that it is very creditable to British industry that more money is being spent on advertising than on research, according to his own figures? As he apparently accepts responsibility, since he has answered the Question, can he say whether the Government have any proposals for redressing this balance?

Mr. Rodgers: There is obviously no ideal ratio between expenditure on industrial research and on advertising. The ratio must vary between particular firms and particular industries. However, whereas nearly the whole of the £300 million spent on research and development is spent by the manufacturing industries, the Advertising Association in the latest year for which figures are available, which I think is 1956, estimates that only 60 per cent. of the advertising expenditure is by manufacturing industries.

Mr. Lee: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that about two-thirds of the £300 million spent in private industry is found by the Government and is public money?

Mr. Rodgers: No, I do not agree. It is estimated by D.S.I.R. that less than one-half of expenditure on scientific research and development in 1958 was spent on Government contracts.

Industry (Take-overs and Amalgamations)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the increasing number of take-overs and amalgamations which have occurred since the passing of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act; and if he will take steps to introduce legislation, similar to that which exists in the United States of America, in order to prevent these from taking place when the tendency of these mergers is to create a monopoly, or to substantially lessen competition.

Mr. J. Rodgers: My right hon. Friend is aware that there have been many takeovers and amalgamations. Some may be due to the operation of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956, but a number are not. The answer to the second part of the Question is "No, Sir!" but, if investigation of a monopoly appears necessary, we have the Monopolies Commission available to carry it out.

Mr. Johnson: Will my hon. Friend agree with the statements made by the chairman of British Insulated Callender's Cables Ltd. and the chairman of Associated Electrical Industries Ltd. that one of the reasons for the increasing number of take-overs is the Restrictive Trade Practices Act? Is it not clear that one of the inevitable consequences of that Act was to lessen competition instead of to increase it?

Mr. Rodgers: I said in my original Answer that some amalgamations certainly were attributable to the operation of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act.

Mr. Wade: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this was foreshadowed when the Measure was passing through the House? Will he consider introducing amending legislation to cover the loopholes in the light of experience since the Act was passed?

Mr. Rodgers: No. I think that it is too early yet to consider that. The Act was put on the Statute Book only in 1956, and I think that we need a little more time to see how it operates.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Harold Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to sound too self-important—[Interruption.] —but in view of the importance of Question No. 48 on the Order Paper today, which asks whether the Prime Minister would be prepared to suspend patrol and other flights from British bases before the Summit talks, could not this House have an Answer?

Mr. Speaker: No. The hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) has been here a long time, and knows that that is not possible.

Mr. Davies: Is the Minister prepared to give an answer?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, I am perfectly prepared to give an answer, if the rules permit it, but on this occasion I do not think that they do. I am sorry.

NORTHERN RHODESIA (DISTURBANCES)

Mr. Callaghan: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the disturbances in Northern Rhodesia on 8th May, following which 127 Africans have been arrested.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): There has been a most regrettable outbreak of lawlessness in the Copperbelt over the past week-end. Apart from the deplorable attack on Mrs. Burton and her daughters, which the whole House will condemn, cars were stoned or attacked in 16 separate incidents in all, and 14 persons were injured.
There were also three attacks on beer halls, in one of which a building was set on fire and in two of them the police called to the scene were stoned by crowds. A European was stoned by a crowd who entered upon his own property, and elsewhere an African property was damaged. An unauthorised meeting of the United


National Independence Party was dispersed, and a number of Africans were arrested.
Every effort is being made by the police to identify and apprehend Mrs. Burton's attackers, and the offenders in other incidents, and the police in the Western Division are fully mobilised.
I fear that these events exemplify a growing tendency towards violence, which was already apparent during my recent visit, and which has its roots in extremist political agitation. I made it plain to all concerned during my visit that lawlessness could not be tolerated, that violence inevitably retarded political progress, and that if it occurred it would be firmly handled.
I wish to repeat that warning today, and the Governor will have my full support in any measures which he may think it necessary to take to restore and maintain law and order.

Mr. Callaghan: Will the Colonial Secretary ask the Governor to convey to Mrs. Burton the sympathy that all of us must feel for her and for her two daughters in the ordeal that she suffered? Will he also convey to the Governor our very strong view that the leaders of all the political parties should call upon their followers to renounce violence in any circumstances?
Having said that, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will look further into the cause of these riots and, in view of the fact that the very existence of the Federation itself is a cause of tension, whether he will satisfy himself that the actions of the authorities in banning meetings are well judged, and not calculated more to rouse tempers than to quieten them? Will he also consider whether there should not be a further advance in the revision of the Constitution, or an announcement made, so that the Africans, who are now in an extremely volatile state of mind, may be assured that their interests will be properly safeguarded by their own people when they come to the review of the Federal Constitution later this year?

Mr. Macleod: I very much welcome the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. The whole House will condemn these outrages, and they have been condemned in Northern

Rhodesia by all shades of political opinion, European and African alike— not just by the United Federal Party and by the Dominion Party, but by the Central Africa Party and by Mr. Harry Nkumbula—and it is right that the House should add its detestation of violence.
We are inevitably coming into a period of tremendous tension in Northern Rhodesia, and I think that it is a time for measuring one's words very carefully indeed. For example, the elections in the Congo start tomorrow, and the numbers of incidents have been accumulating over recent times.
With regard to what the hon. Gentleman said about public meetings, and political advance in Northern Rhodesia, I made it clear when I was there that I thought that Nyasaland was a special case and that, therefore, the conference planned for July should take place to replace the one that was lost owing to the emergency a year ago. I do not think that exactly the same argument holds good for Northern Rhodesia, but, on the general question, surely the position is this. I think that almost everybody in the House wants to see political advance for all the peoples, but lawlessness is not the way to bring this about, and in times like this the first thing to do is to unite with the Governor and with all responsible opinions— European and African alike—to condemn it.

Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman may inadvertently have forgotten the last part of my question, which referred to the need—and I beg him most earnestly about this—to go on making adequate representations to ensure that, whether or not there is constitutional advance, the Africans will be represented by their own people at the forthcoming constitutional conference on the future of the Federation in these territories. Will the Colonial Secretary give an explicit assurance about this, and say as soon as he possibly can what form that representation will take?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, I will give an explicit assurance on that now. African opinion will be represented at the Federal talks, but it is too early yet, in view of the fact that five Governments are concerned, to say what form that representation will take.

Sir L. Plummer: Does the Colonial Secretary appreciate that the lady who was hurt in the attack is a constituent of mine? Would he make representations to the Governor to have her condition watched most carefully, and, if there should not be sufficient medical facilities in Ndola to look after her adequately, to arrange for her to be flown home and cared for here?

Mr. Macleod: If that were necessary, of course, we should consider what would be helpful in her condition. Mrs. Burton is, I am sorry to say, in a very serious condition indeed, but I am sure that all medical attention which is available to her has been provided.

Mr. Lipton: In the present circumstances, do Her Majesty's Government still consider it desirable that a certain Royal visit should take place in these parts in the near future?

Mr. Macleod: It would be very sad if the great desire of the Queen Mother to visit this territory and the great desire of the peoples there that she should go were frustrated by the incidents which have occurred. There are no plans for altering the programme, but, naturally, it is something which will be watched carefully in the next few days.

PINK ZONE (MINISTER OF TRANSPORT'S SPEECH)

Mr. Mellish: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I desire to call your attention to an article published today in The Times. I should like to quote a short passage from it:
Mr. Marples, the Minister of Transport, last night described the Pink Zone in London's West End last Christmas as 'the greatest bluff ever perpetrated'. He told the Cities of London and Westminster Conservative Association: ' There was no real enforcement power yet the public responded to exhortation '.
I raise this matter with you, Sir, because that was a scheme introduced by the Minister with the full approval of the House. He came to the Dispatch Box and put it before the House, carrying right hon. and hon. Members on both sides with him in any efforts which might relieve traffic congestion, and at no time was a suggestion conveyed to any of us that there was any possibility of illegality. The imputation of the Minister's

speech, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, is that this House has, in the eyes of many hon. Members here and of many people outside, been associated with what the Minister himself described as a sheer act of bluff.
I am addressing my remarks to you, Mr. Speaker, in the knowledge that you, as custodian of the House, would wish to protect the dignity and importance of the House. Perhaps on a later occasion you may wish to consider the matter.

Mr. Speaker: I am in this difficulty, that I cannot follow why what the hon. Member has put to me is a point of order. In other circumstances, it might be urged —I am not encouraging him—that it raised a matter of Privilege by contempt, but if that were so this is the wrong point in our proceedings to do it.

Mr. Mellish: With very great respect, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the article, by imputation, alleges that all of us here, including yourself, who took the Chair at the time, were involved in an act which was a bluff upon the people, and, indeed, an illegal act. I have put the matter to you in this form, because I felt that you should be advised of it immediately.

Mr. Speaker: However much I am involved myself, I do not think that it is a point of order. We might discuss it at another stage, but not now.

Mr. Hale: On a quite separate point of order, but arising out of that, Mr. Speaker. It has always been the rule in the House that one should not impute or use the word "lie" in respect of any hon. or right hon. Member, and this is a usage which I have always struggled to observe, sometimes with difficulty. Arising out of the statement made by the Minister of Transport, would it now be out of order, in view of the fact that he boasted that he lied, for me to say that on that occasion the right hon. Gentleman spoke the truth?

Mr. Speaker: I should like to see what the right hon. Gentleman is reported to have said before I could suggest to the hon. Member how his own standards should be governed in respect of that matter.

Mr. C. Pannell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I submit that this is rather more serious than has been portrayed. A Member of Parliament


addressing the House takes responsibility for the truth of his statements. Having made a statement, he expects the House to accept it. This is what we mean when we call each other hon. Members, presumably. When an hon. or right hon. Member speaks from the Dispatch Box, the significance of that is that in the Box are all the things upon which Members swear to tell the truth. That may be a rather rash assumption, and it seems to have been wrong on this occasion. In his speech, has not the right hon. Gentleman, in effect, brought the House into contempt?

Mr. Speaker: If the allegation were that the right hon. Gentleman had brought the House into contempt, this is the wrong moment in our proceedings today to raise it. I want to get on.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Peppiatt Report

Mr. E. Johnson: I beg to give notice that on Monday, 23rd May, I shall call attention to the Peppiatt Report, and move a Resolution.

Mr. Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Head), in a Ballot last week, gave notice that he would call attention to the Peppiatt Report, and, by the rule of anticipation, the hon. Gentleman's notice of Motion must surely fall.

Mr. Speaker: I am told that that is not quite right, because the right hon. Member's Motion was No. 3, and we all know the fate of No. 3.

Decimal Currency

Mr. Proudfoot: I beg to give notice that on Monday, 23rd May, I shall call attention to the need for a decimal currency, and move a Resolution.

High Cost of Land

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to give notice that on Monday, 23rd May, I shall call attention to the high cost of land, and move a Resolution.

Orders of the Day — BETTING AND GAMING BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 6.—(INCREASE OF PENALTIES FOR STREET BETTING.)

3.47 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 5, line 36, after "than", to insert "six months after ".
It will be remembered that, when the Bill was under consideration on Thursday last, on the eve of the Royal wedding, our proceedings were interrupted at a point when the Home Secretary had given a qualified assurance that he would reconsider the provisions in Clause 6 with regard to the increased penalties proposed for street betting offences when the Bill comes into operation.
I use the expression "comes into operation" as distinct from "comes into law", because the whole point of the Amendment I am now proposing is to ask the Home Secretary to tell us something more than we have yet heard about the Government's intentions with regard to the timetable for bringing into operation not only this particular part of the Bill, but the remaining parts of it. In Committee, this aspect of the matter was left in some confusion. Clause 29 provides for the Act to come into force on an appointed day. Clause 6 contemplates that this particular part dealing with increased penalties for street betting will come into operation not on the same day as the Act comes into operation, but at a later date. My Amendment proposes that that later date should be not less than six months after the day appointed for the coming into force of the Measure.
Since the Amendment was tabled, some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have, I think, doubted whether the period of six months would be adequate. If the Home Secretary is prepared to accept the principle of the Amendment, I hope that he might be willing to go even further than the Amendment suggests and provide an even longer interval between the time when the Bill operates and the date when the increased penalties begin to operate.
It will be appreciated that this is a matter of vital concern to street bookmakers. When the Bill begins to operate the system of licensing of betting offices will begin. We do not know how long that will take. It is not yet clear what the procedure under town planning legislation will be, but inevitably there must be a considerable interval of time after the Bill comes into operation before the betting offices throughout the country which the Home Secretary envisages can be acquired, licensed and approved, if necessary, under town planning schemes.
Not until that stage will the bookmakers know which of them have been fortunate enough to obtain a licence for a betting office and which have not. The unfortunate ones will then either be deprived of the livelihood which they have hitherto enjoyed or, if they tempt Providence, they will be subject, as street bookmakers, not merely to the same penalties to which they have been subject for some years, but to the increased penalties proposed in this Clause. On any footing, it would seem desirable as an act of justice that a fairly long interval should elapse before these unfortunate people become subject to these severely increased penalties which on Thursday my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) described as savage.
In Committee, I think that the Joint Under-Secretary of State promised that there would be a generous interval to enable this interregnum to operate. The problem will be particularly acute in London and the South, whereas in Scotland and certain parts of the North of England betting offices already exist —although at present they are illegal they will become legal under the Bill —and, therefore, there should not be any great delay in the mechanics. Whether there will be any delay in Scotland I do not know, but it is obvious that there must be considerable delay in London and the South. There will be difficulties in finding accommodation. Bookmakers will be subject to extortionate demands for the new betting offices which they will be forced to acquire. Those evils will be accentuated unless there is a fairly long period before Clause 6 begins to operate.
There is a further point on which the House would welcome some information

from the Home Secretary, namely, to what extent the Government's recent announcement concerning the recommendations of the Peppiatt Committee will affect the Government's timetable for bringing the Bill into operation. All that we have heard so far is that the Government are not to deal with the Committee's recommendations this Session. We understand that they are contemplating separate legislation next Session to deal with them. At one time, the Home Secretary hoped that the recommendations of that Committee might be incorporated in this Bill. It is obvious that some hon. Members are far more interested in the recommendations of the Peppiatt Committee than they are in certain provisions in the Bill.
Perhaps the Home Secretary will tell us whether it is his intention to make arrangements for appointing a day both in respect of the Bill generally and also with regard to Clause 6 without waiting for further legislative measures which would be necessary concerning the recommendations of the Peppiatt Committee.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): This is a reasonable and modest Amendment and we advise the House to accept it. In view of the remarks of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), I would remind the House that we are dealing with a rather narrow point, and I cannot respond fully to his invitation to deal with various other matters which seem to him to arise from it. An opportunity to deal fully with those other matters will arise on Clause 29 and, in particular, on the Amendment to it in page 23, line 27, at the end to insert:
not being earlier than the first day of March nineteen hundred and sixty-one".
This Amendment merely defines the period which should elapse between the coming into operation of Clause 4, which relates to betting office licences and betting agency permits, and the bringing into operation of the increased penalties under the Street Betting Act, 1906. The House will recollect that ever since the Royal Commission, and right through our discussions, it has never been disputed by anyone that there should be a reasonable interval between the appointed day for the purpose of the licensing system


and the appointed day for the purpose of increased penalties under the Street Betting Act.
We are not here considering a mere period of grace after the Bill receives the Royal Assent. We are considering a much later period of grace, which may not be for another year or so, which will not start until after the day appointed under Clause 4. Bearing that in mind, we feel that the period of six months suggested by the hon. Member is about right. Six months should be long enough after the licensing procedure has been established and after the people concerned have found premises in which to work for them to get away from their old practices, which are to be prohibited in future, of steet betting and to make a clean start with betting offices.
Candidly, I think that that is all that it is in order and appropriate for me to say at this stage. Certainly, I would be right out of order if I were to discuss the potential effect of any later proposals which the Government might put before the House with reference to the Peppiatt Committee's Report.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: I should like to express my appreciation and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who, although he cannot be with us at present, will join us later, to the Government, for we raised this point in Committee.
I must, however, express my regret— I hope that the Home Secretary will take note of this—that the right hon. Gentleman is not joined this afternoon by the Secretary of State for Scotland. At all stages of the Bill, particularly in Committee, we have learned to our horror that the bribery of the police in Scotland is a national industry. It is carried on regardless of the social consequences and it is clear that the Bill will reward it.
Last Thursday, the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) pointed out what the Bill will do. Those bookmakers in the North who have established betting shops outside the law are to be given a substantial reward. They will at once be promoted officially into the Surtax-paying class. [HON. MEMBERS: " Oh."] Hon. Members interrupt, but this is the effect of it—

Mr. Speaker: That may be the effect of it, but will the hon. Member either relate his argument to the Amendment or cease using it?

Mr. Wigg: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. If you will bear with me for a moment or two, I will come to the point. I raised it in Committee, when I pointed out how horror-struck I was to learn that the Government's proposals on this matter were conditioned by recommendations from the Home Office.
We have been given instance after instance—it is all in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings— to show that the Scottish Office will be in a position of great difficulty. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said that it would be a matter of the greatest difficulty to carry the Bill into operation because the corruption in Scotland has gone so far, so wide and so deep that a maximum effort will be required even to begin to get away from this pernicious state of affairs.
I have not the least objection to what is done in Scotland as long as it does not come south of the Border. I am, however, entitled to point out the effect in Scotland and that the Scottish miscreants who have evaded the law, certainly for the last fifty years, to their personal profit, are now, as it were, to be sanctified by the Government. On the other hand, citizens in the South, who live in constituencies such as that represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), or in Dudley or Stourbridge, are to be hounded by the law.

Mr. Speaker: I do not mind what happens in Scotland, Stourbridge or anywhere, but I do mind what happens here. The hon. Member is obliged to address himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Wigg: Your concern for what happens here, Mr. Speaker, is fully shared by myself. I am endeavouring to point out that the Government are doing not one thing, but two things, and that whilst the interval which elapses between the appointed day and the date on which the penalties come into operation has an importance for Scotland, which I mention only in passing, I am concerned also about the interval as it affects Bermondsey, Dudley and Stourbridge. As the representative of Dudley


and Stourbridge, I am entitled, I should have thought, to the full protection of the Chair in putting that view. I am not here concerned about arguing whether the law is carried out in Scotland.
I want from the Government an assurance, which I am sure the Home Secretary can give, about the application of the law in England. My reason for protesting on this point is that we are entitled to have the Secretary of State for Scotland here to give us an assurance, which certainly could not be given by the Joint Under-Secretary, that an interval of six months will be sufficient to purge the police of the poison which undoubtedly circulates in Scotland now.
I make the point not because I want to interfere in any way with what happens in Scotland. The reason why the bookmakers in my constituency and in the constituencies of other hon. Members who represent English constituencies are to be hounded is that the Secretary of State for Scotland has failed to carry out his duties in the past. I have seen no evidence, nor has any statement ever been made from the Government Front Bench, that the Scottish Office even has any qualms of conscience about the intolerable position which exists in Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland should be here to give us an assurance on this point. I use this opportunity, therefore, first to thank the Government for their generosity in conceding the point made in our Amendment, but also to protest at the absence of the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: There is a great deal of validity in what my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has said. The Clause and the Amendment concern the penalties to be imposed on street bookmakers once the Bill becomes an Act. I understand that the Government now concede that there will be a six-month period of grace before the penalties begin to be imposed on street bookmakers.
The reason why street bookmakers are being abolished is that it has been discovered, much to our horror, that north of the Border there are already about 400 illegal betting shops. It came to me, as a Southerner, as a very great shock to know that they were being flagrantly patronised, people were going to them

and they were an accepted part of the way of life. It was said again and again in Committee that that being so, the status quo must be accepted, but that down South the status quo must go. It was on that basis that we had our long and, sometimes, heartbreaking arguments on the whole question. The effect of the Amendment is that the increased penalties for street betting will be deferred for six months.
I appreciate this small acknowledgment of the fact that these people are to be made illegal overnight, which is what will happen when the Bill comes into operation, but these people will have a tremendous job to make themselves legal. It might well take more than six months before some of them can get the shops which make them legal. In my area, they are having great trouble in getting the right sort of places in the right areas. Prices now being asked for these shop premises are fantastically high. The price of the property has gone up enormously. It will, therefore, be a considerable time before they will be able to start operating legally.
I thank the Government for what they have done. As the Amendment applies to the increased penalties for street betting, I wonder why the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) did not put down an Amendment to it—he might just as well have done, and I am sure it would have been carried—to have the street bookmakers flogged as well as fined £100. That would have been most appropriate when the Government are determined to wipe them out, and the hon. Member could have had the time of his life. I would have put down a further Amendment demanding that the flogging be done in public, so that we could all get fun out of it. as the hon. Member would have done.

Mr. Speaker: I must ask the hon. Member to observe the rules of order.

Mr. Mellish: I end on a small note of thanks to the Government for making this small concession.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): As will emerge later at the appropriate stage of the Bill, the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) underestimates the time which street bookmakers will be given to put their houses in order.


The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has talked about what he learned with horror. It was the hon. Member who spread the horror in Committee; and it was not what he learned, but what he said. The hon. Member, however, has not given us one jot or tittle of evidence to support his suggestion of corruption in the police in Scotland and I cannot accept what he says. We believe that the six months will be adequate in Scotland, as it will be in England and Wales.

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Gentleman says that he has no jot or tittle of evidence. He has only to read what he said in Standing Committee. He said:
Do not let us disregard the fact that to enforce the existing law would require a tremendous amount of effort."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D. 15th March, 1960; c. 835.]
The hon. Gentleman went on to suggest that only the fringe of the problem was being touched in Scotland, yet in 1958, 16,000 people were convicted of nearly 4,000 betting and gaming offences. This was a problem which the hon. Gentleman agreed existed. He said that only the fringe of it was being touched.

Mr. Macpherson: It is true that there has been great difficulty in enforcing the law, but there is no difference in that respect between Scotland and England. The only difference is that the law has been infringed mainly in one way in England—by street bookmaking—and in another way in Scotland by having betting shops.

Mr. James Mclnnes: I. too. express my pleasure that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has accepted the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher). In fairness to all the book-making fraternity down here, it will considerably clarify the position.
Again, we have had observations by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) concerning what he calls the horrible practices that prevail in Scotland. He has not yet realised, however, that when he deals with the Scottish position his speeches are always regarded by hon Members, in the House as well as in Committee, as a model of non-informative eloquence. To that extent, I hops that we will hear no more about these horrible practices in Scotland.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7.—(BETTING WITH YOUNG PERSONS).

Mr. N. Macpherson: I beg to move, in page 5, line 41, after "transaction", to insert:
or in a licensed betting office ".
This Clause, dealing with betting with young persons, was inserted in the Bill in Committee with, I think, the assent of the whole Committee. Subsection (1, b) makes it an offence to employ
 a young person "—
that is, a person under 18—
in the effecting of any betting transaction;".
It would, therefore, prevent a young person from being employed in licensed betting offices behind the counter in taking bets, giving receipts for them or paying out winnings, but it would still be permissible, as the subsection stands, to employ a young person in licensed betting offices as a chalker or in some other capacity which does not involve effecting a betting transaction.
It seems undesirable that young persons should be employed in licensed betting offices in any capacity. The Amendment, therefore, prevents young persons from being employed at all in licensed betting offices.
It is true that paragraph (2) of the Second Schedule makes it a rule for the conduct of licensed betting offices that no young persons
 … shall be admitted to or allowed to remain on …
licensed premises.
That paragraph is meant primarily to prevent young persons from going into licensed betting offices to bet. It seems better, therefore, to make it quite clear that young persons must not be employed in the actual licensed betting offices.

Mr. Fletcher: May I ask the Joint Under-Secretary one question? In Committee, he said:
The intention is that young persons should be debarred from receiving or placing bets on behalf of an employer but that a young person could be employed as a typist or in the making up of accounts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 15th March, 1960; c. 842.]
He has now told us that the object of the Amendment is to prevent a young person being employed as a chalker. Is he also intending, contrary to what he said in Committee, to prevent a young


person being employed as a typist in a betting office?

Mr. Macpherson: With the leave of the House, may I say that a licensed betting office is the actual betting office that is licensed for the effecting of betting transactions, but there may be premises behind it and it would be possible in the premises behind for a young person to be employed. The premises behind are not licensed. In fact, we come to that aspect in a later Amendment.

Mr. R. T. Paget: We shall at least know that when a chalker or "chalker-upper" appears on the "What's My Line" programme he is over 18. I am wondering what is the point of this. Is it the Government's view that betting is wrong, or is it not? If it is their view that betting is wrong, why are they prepared to pass this Bill, which will probably lead to the investment of about £100 million of the nation's resources in new expenditure on gambling? That is something comparable to what has been wasted on Blue Streak.
On the other hand, if the Government think that it is all right, and that there is nothing wrong with it, why should not apprentices be brought up in this business, which the Government seem to consider is quite right? We are told that a bookmaker's business is often a family business. Why should not the son help his father in the trade which the Government are legalising, which they do not say is wrong? Presumably, if it is that sort of trade, there is no reason why the son should not follow the father or, indeed, the daughter the mother, as I believe that there are some lady bookmakers.
What is this sort of nonsense? If we legalise in this way the use of great sums of new capital and new resources of the nation, why, on the other hand, must we say that this business is so disreputable that apprentices and young people may not be introduced to what is the living and business of their parents? That sort of idiotic hypocrisy I find it very difficult to put up with.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Wigg: I note with some significance that the names to this Amendment are the Secretary of State for the

Home Department and the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is not here. We have, therefore, to take from the Joint Under-Secretary what he has said on this occasion and on previous occasions.
It is perfectly clear that what has become a national industry in Scotland, although utterly illegal, requires the employment of young people, not necessarily connected with taking bets, not working as chalkers-up, but behind the scenes in compiling the accounts. It is clear that this business cannot be carried on without the employment of young people.
The Amendment is on the Notice Paper because the Secretary of State's duty to this illegal industry in Scotland is obviously so great that he has to take steps to protect it. There is no protest from an hon. Member opposite who has always spoken so well for the betting industry in Scotland. In the Midlands, we have plenty of work—and productive work—for young people to do. Are they to be diverted from productive industry into betting shops which, on the evidence of the Joint Under-Secretary, cannot be carried on without their employment? If it is bad for young people to be engaged in the betting industry, where they are brought into contact with the public and their conditions of employment and activities can be observed, why is it right that they should operate behind closed doors?
Apparently, the Joint Under-Secretary regards this as a bit of a check, but if betting shops are to take root in England on anything like the scale they have taken root in Scotland, we must have regard to the conditions of employment in those offices. This appears to be an innocent proposal, but I believe that it has never been seriously considered by the Home Secretary but was put on the Notice Paper at the instance of the Secretary of State for Scotland. I repeat that he has never at any stage of our proceedings had the courage to come to the House to defend the state of affairs in Scotland. I think that before we accept this Amendment we should hear a great deal more about it.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dennis Vosper): The only significance in the intervention of the Secretary of State


for Scotland is that he gave me a hand in Committee on the Bill and helped me to deal with this Clause. I am grateful to him, and he has taken the same course with this Amendment.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) was not with us in Committee when, without a vote, the Committee decided that it was wrong that people under the age of 18 should be employed in betting transactions. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary certainly thinks that that is the right decision. I rather regret that the hon. and learned Gentleman is a dissenting party to that decision. The only significance of the Amendment is that there could be the odd person employed in a betting office itself, who was not taking part in a betting transaction, as a chalker or something of that kind and it was thought right to include the prohibition of that person.

Mr. Paget: I should be interested to know what the difference here is between working in the back room and working in the front room. Why is the young person seduced by the one, but not by the other?

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, in page 5, line 42, to leave out "accepts".

Mr. Speaker: I believe that it would be convenient to discuss this with two other Amendments which go with it, in Clause 11, page 8, line 9, to leave out "accept", and in line 38, to leave out "accept".

Mr. Vosper: This is really a set of tidying-up Amendments. The definition of "bookmaker" in the Bill does not include the word "accept". A bookmaker is a person who receives or negotiates a bet. On consideration, it was thought reasonable to adjust the rest of the Bill to agree with that definition and the word "accept" where it occurs throughout the Bill is redundant. These Amendments achieve that purpose.

Mr. Mellish: I would not oppose the
Amendment, but I should like to make a few remarks on it. The Clause deals with betting by young persons, and I should like to see that the person under 18 years of age is not encouraged to bet.

In these days young people are much taller and bigger than they were a few years ago. I speak from experience. I have five sons. One of them, aged 18, is 6 ft. 3 in. and another, aged 16, is 6 ft. 1 in. I doubt whether anyone would say that either was not over 18 years of age. If one of them went to a betting shop, it is true that he would have to deal with me afterwards, but is a young person expected to carry a birth certificate around with him? The bookmaker might well be in trouble. This is the sort of Clause which the police will have to handle with great discretion and care. In principle, however, I support it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I beg to move, in page 5, line 44, at the end to insert:
Provided that a person shall not be guilty of an offence under this subsection by reason of—

(i) the employment of a young person in the effecting of betting transactions by post: or
(ii) the carriage by a young person of a communication relating to a betting transaction for the purposes of its conveyance by post.


Subsection (1, b), with which we have already dealt, makes it an offence to employ a young person in the effecting of any betting transactions. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend. East (Mr. McAdden) moved an Amendment in Committee which would have confined this prohibition to employment in a licensed betting office. But we feel, and I think that the Committee were agreed, that, while the prohibition in the Bill may be too wide, to limit it to a licensed betting office only would be to narrow it too much. A young person employed in a credit betting office, for example, who receives bets by telephone would be directly employed in the effecting of betting transactions hardly less than one who took bets over the counter in a licensed betting office.
Paragraph (i) of the Amendment excepts from the prohibition employees who are not in direct communication or contact with the public, that is those not actually effecting betting transactions by telephone or by speech. Those who deal with correspondence or accounts, whether in connection with cash betting, postal betting or pool betting, are not in direct contact with the public in the same way. The only difference as far as


cash betting is concerned is that they may not be employed actually in the licensed betting office.
Paragraph (i) is intended to overcame the difficulties of prohibition in subsection (1, c) making it an offence for any person to receive or negotiate any bet through a young person. It might be held to make it an offence for a young person to carry a letter to the post containing a bet. Such a proposition would be both unreasonable and uneforceable, and paragraph (ii) of the Amendment excepts it.

Mr. Paget: I am returning to my earlier point and I should be much obliged for some moral enlightenment here. Why is it moral for a child to receive letters which contain bets and money, to put the bets aside, to enter the bets in the ledger, to draw the cheques for paying the bets and carry out all these transactions, but it is wrong if he receives the envelope across the counter instead of by post? I could understand that there was some point in it if we were dealing merely with a messenger boy who carries a number of letters which may or may not include bets to and from a post box, but here we are allowing the child to open the letters, take out the money, work out the winnings and prepare the winning cheque. He can do the whole transaction as long as the bet arrives by post and is not made over the counter. It is farcical, but the reason is a great deal more cynical than farcical.
The reason for the Amendment, of course, is the pools. The reason for the Amendment is that thousands of young people are being employed today by the pools industry to receive these bets and correspondence. These are young people taken straight from school in competition with productive industry. They are never taught any job. They are merely cheap labour. They are introduced to no productive trade or work, but are taken from school in mass numbers not to a place where there is any of the personal contact of a family business, which may be the case in a bookmakers' office, but into a machine of mass gambling with no opportunity of ever learning anything. This is much the most evil form of seduction of youth by gambling, and this is the very thing we

are expressly legalising here in a hypocritical and under-the-counter way, because the pools are too rich and powerful and because the Government dare not touch them.

Mr. Stephen McAdden: I should not have intervened in this matter had it not been for the somewhat illogical way that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) was attempting to put his argument. He was for many years a member of the Racecourse Betting Control Board. A great deal of the income of that Board is derived from Tote Investments Ltd., which, during the time when the hon. and learned Member was a member of the Control Board, employed young people in precisely the same way as he now thinks it so wrong on the part of other people to employ them. If he wants to talk of hypocrisy he should first search his past actions before he condemns other people.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11. —(AMENDMENT OF POWERS, RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF RACECOURSE BETTING CONTROL BOARD.)

Amendments made: In page 8, line 9, leave out "accept".

In line 38, leave out "accept".— [Mr. Vosper.]

Clause 12.—(RESTRICTION ON POOL BETTING AND OFFERING OF TOTE ODDS IN CERTAIN DOG RACES.)

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Renton: I beg to move in page 10, line 14, to leave out from beginning to "bets" and to insert:
by way of business to receive or negotiate".
Perhaps it would be convenient to the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if we took with this one the three following Amendments, in lines 21, 42 and 43.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): That would be convenient.

Mr. Renton: These are drafting Amendments and are consequential upon Amendments which have already been made at the suggestion of the Government, to Clauses 7 and 11. They are drafted purely for the sake of consistency.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 10, line 21, leave out from "or" to first "on" in line 22 and insert:
by way of business to receive or negotiate bets".

In line 42, leave out "accepts or receives" and insert:
receives or negotiates".

In line 43, leave out " accept or receive" and insert:
receive or negotiate".—[Mr. Renton.]

Clause 15.—(REPEAL OF EXISTING LAW RELATING TO GAMING.)

Mr. N. Macpherson: I beg to move, in page 11, line 17, after "Act", to insert:
(including any of those enactments as incorporated in, or adopted by or under, any local Act)".
During the twenty-third sitting of the Standing Committee it agreed to an Amendment, which is now in Clause 27 (3), which will have the effect of repealing local Act provisions which adapt or incorporate any provisions included in the Repeals Schedule. This Amendment is consequential on that change. The reason why it appears only in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is that there are apparently no English provisions to which it could apply.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16. —(GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO GAMING.)

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I beg to move, in page 12, line 10, to leave out subsection (3).

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understand that it would be convenient for the House to discuss with this Amendment the Government Amendment, in page 12, line 12, at end to insert:
except where both the following conditions are satisfied, that is to say—

(a) that the gaming takes place in a private dwelling-house; and
(b) that any such person taking part in the gaming does so with the permission, whether general or special, of a parent or guardian of that person".


and also the Government Amendment in page 13, to leave out lines 19 to 29 and to insert

and
(c) that no person took part in the gaming who was not either—

(i) a member of the club in pursuance of an application or nomination for membership made more than twenty-four hours before the gaming began; or
(ii) a bona fide guest of such a member; and


(d) that the club is so constituted and conducted, both as regards membership and otherwise, as not to be of a merely temporary character".

Mr. Rees-Davies: That would be convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
This matter raises one of the remaining most important matters in the Bill. For those hon. Members who were not on the Standing Committee, I might start by saying that this whole question of the young engaging in gaming was not originally within the Bill and came in by way of an Amendment in Committee. It is one of very great importance. I regret, although I understand, that the House is not full and that many of our colleagues who have hitherto been concerned with the Bill have probably lost interest as a result of the long Committee stage and have not, therefore, taken an active part in what will affect the livelihood of every citizen and the youth of the country.
This Amendment, and the Government Amendments—which amend the Government Amendment put forward in Standing Committee—go to the root of this subject. I say that this will affect the lives of the people in the long run much more closely than all the issues of street or office betting or any other issue in connection with this Bill. The question we have to discuss now is in Clause 16, and I am moving to omit the following words:
… no gaming shall take place at which any person under the age of eighteen years is included among the players.
As that stands, the Clause is preposterous. I started myself and graduated from snap at the age of four, to bridge at the age of seven. Having got there at the age of seven, by the age of 10 I went to my first Conservative fete as a Young Briton, where I engaged in housey-housey. Every child is brought up to engage to a certain extent in gaming. If one is ever to be any good as a player of card games later on, it is essential that one should begin early in life.
I began cricket at eight years of age. I began bridge at the same age, and I hope that if I have children they will engage in gaming at an early age. When the word is used today it tends to be used in the connotation which is sometimes found in the newspapers, as meaning gaming of the casino type, such as baccarat, or chemin-de-fer, with rich people playing for high stakes. While I am, as much as anybody, against people engaging in high stakes under the age of 18, I wish to say a few words about this.
This Clause must either be totally omitted or drastically amended. My right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Joint Under-Secretary of State —who has assisted the Home Secretary throughout the Bill—have chosen the latter alternative and have put down an Amendment. They have said that gaming shall be permitted to take place where youth is under the age of 18 provided the following two conditions apply: first, that the gaming takes place in a private dwelling house—that is a very important point—and, secondly, that any such person taking part in the gaming does so with the permission, general or special, of the parent or guardian there present.
My first point is that a very large amount of small gaming goes on in this country in tourist and seaside resorts throughout the summer months. Among those who have consulted me on these matters are Butlin's and Warner's, and also the federation of these holiday camps. They have discussed not these precise Amendments—because time was short—but the general tenor of this very important subject. A visitor to any camp—be it Butlin's or anyone else's— to an ordinary boarding house or to "Dreamland", or to "Merrie England", will find that the children engage in at one time or another, or are present at, gaming which is of a harmless nature.
Neither of the Government Amendments takes account of this very important matter. Camps engage in housey-housey and children are present. Under the Bill, unless this particular provision is omitted entirely, that will still remain wholly illegal and I venture to say that next year Bedlam will be let loose unless we grapple with this subject.
The House may think that the Bill will cause no trouble. One of the difficulties about all social legislation, as opposed to the Treasury, is that the public knows all about it but knows nothing about the Treasury. If we hurt the public in domestic pleasures we shall be blamed—and I shall blame Members opposite as much as my own side if anything goes wrong, because this has been an all-party Measure. For that reason, let us get this right.
We must be very careful not to introduce too penal a legislation which would stop a particular danger, but, at the same time, would exclude everything. None of us wants young people to engage in gaming for high stakes at a young age. But I have given very deep thought to this matter—more so than to almost any other part of the Bill—and I honestly believe that it is far better to leave it to the care of fathers, mothers and guardians, without having any guidance in the Bill. I would infinitely rather see the exclusion of subsection (3), and I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider the matter very carefully.
Let us consider the attitude of the Church, which is very important. Not only the Baptist community, but the Church of England, and even the Roman Catholic community, take the view that on this question of gaming, although it is right to say that no person under the age of 18 shall be permitted to become a member of a club at which gaming takes place, it is much better to leave the matter to parents or guardians in other respects. It would be easy to introduce an Amendment providing that no youth under the age of 18 shall be permitted to engage in gaming in a club, but that is quite different from the present proposal.
As the Bill stands, no gaming will be allowed at which anybody under the age of 18 is present. Gaming falls into three categories: first, there is the substantially skilful game of cards—the game of bridge, whist or poker; secondly, the small games played at the seaside, such as housey-housey and bingo; and, thirdly, the gaming by machines, in which money is inserted, and which may or may not involve a degree of skill. We are to provide legislation allowing these machines to be operated not only in fun fairs, as at present, but also in milk bars and other


places. It seems quite impossible to legislate in a practical way to prevent people from engaging in gaming of that harmless kind.
If the House is against me in this, and takes the view that a limitation on gaming by youths under the age of 18 should be applied, I would draw its attention to my right hon. Friend's Amendment. In this, he seeks to lay down two conditions. The first is quite all right, but it must be alternative. It is that the gaming takes place in a private dwelling-house. Under the Bill at present, a person can be convicted if he is having a quiet game with his own children in his own home. Even under the terms of my right hon. Friend's Amendment, it will still apparently be necessary to establish two conditions.
The provisions of this Clause are more penal than those of any other Clause, and even under the Government Amendment persons involved must be able to show that the gaming is taking place in a private dwelling-house and that all the youths taking part in the gaming are doing so with the permission, general or special, of their parents or guardians. That is going much too far. It is not necessary to introduce this proposal. This is a liberalising Measure. We are saying that the only gaming which shall be unlawful, whether it involves skill or only chance, or a combination of both, is that which allows a person to make a profit. The purpose of the Bill is to prevent a promoter from making a gain. In other respects, the Bill is completely liberalising.
4.45 p.m.
Further, it is not right to prevent young people from gaming. Let us consider the ordinary traditions of Britain and go back through the centuries. Let us remember the point-to-points, held day after day at the right time of the year. Many of those who go to these meetings go with their children, and how upset the children would be if they did not receive 6d. with which to bet on a horse. I know that I should have been very upset in my young days if I had not been given 6d. to have a bet Children are at home when their parents make out their football coupons; indeed, the children often help in the work. This is part of the life of the country. We cannot put the clock back. If mother and father go to play cards at whist drives, or go to the

local fete, the children collect and keep the lottery tickets. Are we to try to draw a distinction between the act of playing cards by youth and the act of engaging in football pools or betting on horses?
Many children are taken to the dog races in the evenings. I do not say that that is a very good thing; it probably is not. But the parents are responsible; they have to decide. I have no doubt that many hon. Members would say, "I would not take my child dog racing at the age of 12 or 13", or "I would not allow my son to go dog racing when he was under 18 years of age." I know that that view may be held, but that view is held by one speaking as a parent or guardian. If we try to impose duties relating to the limitation of gaming at cards we shall be imposing a much more onerous duty than exists in respect of other matters and, far from engaging in a certain amount of liberalisation, in an attempt to deal with facts as they are today, we shall be going back to the past.
One of the great purposes of the Bill is to try to create or reinforce respect for the police and the enforcement of the law. I was solidly behind the Government in regard to street betting because I thought that it was quite impossible to enforce the law, and in regard to this matter I would ask whether warrants will be issued to enable the police to enter premises because children under the age of 18 are there engaged in playing bridge. If such a practice is adopted all the cases brought by the police will be lost, because the juries will throw them out. People are not prepared to prevent children of 16 or 17 years of age, at public or other schools, from meeting together to play cards. We must remember that boys' clubs exist. I know that in the House of Commons we are allowed to play only chess, but I have always regarded that rule as rather reactionary, especially on some evenings when we have been debating the Finance Bill.
Is it to be said that if a number of boys of 16 years of age sit down in a boys' club to play whist or a similar game they should be prosecuted because they have not obtained the special or general consent of their parents or guardians? I sympathise with the feelings which I know my right hon. Friend has in this


matter, and with his desire to protect youth. I know that he is playing an immense part in the provision of detention centres and youth clubs, and in the promotion of the idea of using leisure properly, but I do not think that I am being an old and outmoded Tory when I say that in the matter of gaming we must rely largely upon the good sense of parents and guardians.
I do not wish to speak for too long, although I do not apologise for having taken up some time. This is one of the most important provisions that we have to discuss. I hope that the House will feel that the proper thing to do. at any rate at this stage, is to delete subsection (3). The Members of another place may wish to discuss this question in very great detail and from a great diversity of viewpoints. I invite my right hon. Friend to say that the whole matter will receive a complete reconsideration, so that if further Amendments are required to be made in another place we will have an opportunity of discussing it again when we debate the Lords' Amendments.
If my right hon. Friend and the House are against me on that view for omitting that altogether, and think that we should insert the words on the Notice Paper in the name of the Home Secretary, then I would certainly hope that my small Amendment to the Home Secretary's Amendment, which is also being discussed with this one, would be acceptable, and that, therefore, gaming which takes place in a private dwelling-house would, by itself, as a condition, certainly prevent the police from having right of access to gaming in private dwelling-houses. Furthermore, if any person under the age of 18 were engaged in gaming with the permission, general or special, of the parents, that would in itself be a sufficient condition, but I must say in all fairness that I know why my right hon. Friend must have put it in.
The only type of gaming which, as I understand it, my right hon. Friend has in mind to stop is of two kinds. First, there is the child going to clubs and places of that kind set up for the purpose of inducing youth to indulge in gaming. I do not believe that, in the main, they do so, because they have not got the money, and the profit element excludes the desire of the promoter to bring in

youths under the age of 18, except in the case of machines which are quite separately illegal. In the case of machines which are separately illegal, a prosecution can take effect anyway.
With regard to the others, I am sure that he wishes to prevent the cases of organised gaming, the "fly-by-night" parties, as they are generally known, which youth may attend, but, again, so far as the attendance of youth is concerned, it is mainly in clubs. If they are private parties and are being conducted for profit, they are illegal anyway. If they are illegal anyway, the people can be convicted just the same, whether youth are present or not.
Therefore, it seems to me—and I hope that I have covered the ground fairly fully—that, in the main, there is no separate protection required in the Bill with regard to youth. In these circumstances, I hope that the House would agree that it is best that this should come out altogether, and that, otherwise, and in any event, the Amendment to be moved by my right hon. Friend should be amended. I hope that both here and in another place the greatest care will be given by the whole House to this question of youth, because every Member of the House should realise that if we go wrong one way or the other, and we find that people have to turn up in court to give evidence for their children, or that the children have to turn up to give evidence with regard to engaging in gaming or otherwise, it will boomerang back on us.

Mr. Paget: Certainly, when I was at school I regularly played cards, both bridge and poker, in my room, and as I look at the benches opposite I realise that I am looking at a number of Members who did exactly the same.

Mr. Wigg: What school?

Mr. Paget: There are a large number of hon. Members opposite who did exactly the same. I know that, because many of them went to the school to which I went. I may further add that at that school I learnt quite a lot of things, few of which have proved more valuable to me in later life than the knowledge how to play cards with a certain skill.
If we are to make that sort of thing a criminal offence and make it a duty


of the police to spy on the rooms of houses at public schools, or indeed other schools, to see if children are having games of cards, what are we coming to? It is time that the Front Bench opposite woke up and stopped being old women.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon: I agree with a large measure of what the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has said. My right hon. Friend will remember that I moved the identical Amendment to this one in the Standing Committee. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend because on that occasion, when I moved to delete subsection (3), he said that he would reconsider the matter. That is the reason why we have the new Government Amendment put down today. I am most grateful for that reconsideration and for this Amendment, but although I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, I still say, with respect, that it does not go far enough. I cannot imagine why gaming for young people would have to take place in a private dwelling house amongst other things.
During the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), I was wondering what would happen if on the way to the seaside on holiday one played bridge or whist with one's parents for pennies or sixpences while in the railway carriage. My right hon. Friend will probably say that the police would not prosecute in circumstances like that, but surely when we are having a new Bill to liberalise and bring up-to-date the whole law on betting and gaming, it is fantastic deliberately to lay down a provision which automatically catches people in those circumstances.
If I can take it one stage further, one of the things which my right hon. Friend has not actually seen fit to amend is the rule in subsection (6) by which any persons present at any game shall be deemed to be present for the purpose of taking part in gaming. If we read subsections (3), (4), (5) and (6), that means that if any child is actually in a railway carriage or a hotel room when four adults are playing bridge or whist, or anywhere else, not only those four adults playing bridge, but also any passers-by, anyone in the lounge of the hotel, is also committing an offence, because, since he was present he would have to prove that he

was not present for unlawful gaming, rather than the onus being on the prosecution to prove that he was.
Although I admit that this new Amendment is certainly an improvement on what was originally proposed, I still respectfully say that I do not think it goes far enough. I do not know whether it is in order to discuss the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), but I believe that we are taking all these Amendments together.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That will be quite in order.

Mr. Channon: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. In that case, I think that if the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, East were carried, the whole position would be totally unenforceable. I cannot believe it is seriously suggested in 1960 that boys of 17 cannot play bridge without the presence of the parent or guardian, and I would imagine that if we have four boys playing bridge we should have to have the four guardians present, according to the Amendment of the hon. Members for Islington, East.

Mr. William Yates: If four people are playing a game of cards in a hospital, are the matron, the sisters and the nurses also guilty?

Mr. Channon: Under the terms of the Bill as it stands at present, unless a hospital is construed as a private dwelling house, and if children of 17 were playing bridge in a large public ward, not only would they be guilty of an offence, but the matron and the nurses would also be guilty of an offence, as well as everyone else who was sitting in the room. I quite agree with my hon. Friend that it would be extremely difficult for those not wishing to commit an offence to withdraw themselves if they were ill in bed and unable to leave. Nevertheless, the onus of proof would be on them to prove that they were not taking part in gaming rather than on the prosecution to prove that they were. What is worse, as my hon. Friend will also appreciate, is the fact that anyone responsible for procuring the players in that game is also guilty of an offence, and indeed any doctor who sent the patient to hospital, under the terms of the Bill as it now


stands, would be procuring the group of players for the purpose of gaming and would be guilty of an offence. Obviously, one could go on multiplying cases like this almost ad infinitum.
Although I agree with my right hon. Friend that he has taken a great step forward at least in some instances to improve the law of gaming in regard to people under 18, I hope he will see fit to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet and, in a Bill in which we are trying to liberalise and bring up to date the law of gaming, will not instead do something ridiculously out-of-date.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Wigg: I am in considerable agreement with what has been said by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) on the general issue, but I found myself in some disagreeable disagreement about his reasons for putting forward this Amendment. By some process of logic which I cannot follow, he said that he objected to street betting because provisions about it could not be enforced. But the doubts about the enforcement of these provisions are as great. Perhaps on that issue he will allow me to call it a draw.
When my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) spoke, I thought that had my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) been here he would have been on his feet pointing out, as it must be pointed out, that the background of our legislation on gaming contains the most ridiculous class distinctions.
The first military offence which I ever committed—at least, the first for which I was ever caught—was the offence of gaming. We were under canvas and it was the practice of the provost sergeant, who had to get some people on fatigues every weekend, to walk around between the lines knowing that Friday was payday, and when he heard the chink of money he would shout, "Leave it down, company orders in the morning".
In due course, my turn came. I shall never forget and still suffer from the sense of injustice which I felt that day when, waiting my turn with fifteen other victims, I heard four characters, who were much older than I, all plead that they were only playing bridge. They

had their case dismissed. I was very young and inexperienced and had no chance of saying anything, so I got four days' C.B. because I was playing pontoon.
The thought has always rankled in my mind, and it did when we were discussing the Bill in Committee, that the officer who awarded me four days' C.B. was certainly an Etonian and so at school with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton. Whereas he thought that bridge was quite respectable, he thought that pontoon was out. That is the background of all our discussion, and it leads me to accept without question the very serious point which was made by the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, that the test of this legislation and the possibility of its success will depend not on what we say or do, but upon whether the general public will give its sanction to it, because whether the general public thinks that it is reasonable and should therefore be supported will largely depend on the extent to which it takes account of the social behaviour of the people.
My hon. and learned Friend said that at Eton it was the general practice to play cards—and, presumably, on some occasions to play poker with the headmaster. I hope that the boys put it across the headmaster, because that would probably have been good for him. It is quite clear that things go on at Eton which would never be permitted at other schools in the community. Nevertheless, whether people have the misfortune to go to Eton—and I regard it as a misfortune when I look at hon. Members who went to Eton— or have the good fortune, as I had, to be educated with a dry scrubber in a barrack room, we learn our habits at an age earlier than 18. It is a piece of grandmotherly nonsense to have the views which it has not been surprising to hear from the Front Bench opposite but which it is astonishing, after all our efforts, to find expressed in the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher).

Mr. Fletcher: I tried to improve the Bill.

Mr. Wigg: If he tried to improve the Bill, I suggest that he gives up the practice, because his Amendment is far


worse even than that of the Government, who are under considerable social pressure.
Those of us who have children and grandchildren know perfectly well that the business of having a little bet is not regarded as terribly evil and starts long before the age of 18. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton that the sooner one starts, the sooner one grows out of it. It is the late-comer to the practice of gambling who gets caught. That is the truth. It is the man who suddenly reads the paper and thinks that he can get rich quickly and who starts gambling, first with his own spare cash and then with his employer's spare cash, who gets involved. One invariably finds that secret gambling, like secret drinking, comes later in life, so that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East should be careful, because he might get bitten and, with his peculiar lack of knowledge, heaven knows what will happen! I think that it would be as well if he withdrew his Amendment and if the Government accepted the very reasonable request of their own supporters and reconsidered this Clause.
Perhaps next time they will not consult the chief constables, who are notoriously bad guides. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will go to a whist drive or two and talk to ordinary people, not vicious, but kindly people, who have not been to public schools and so on, about gambling. He will find that boys and girls who are under 18 do not regard playing a game of pontoon with friends or neighbours as a terrible crime. If they do not regard it as a terrible crime, the Bill will not persuade them that it is, and unless they are persuaded that it is, the Bill will not work, and that would be a social calamity which we would all regret.

Mr. Charles Curran: I rise with some trepidation as I was not a member of the Committee which discussed the Bill and I have never had a bet in my life and have never played cards. I have listened with great curiosity to the comments which have been made, and I have to tell hon. Members making them that they have no right to believe that they speak for everybody in this country.
I do not regard gambling as a joke. I do not regard betting as a joke. I do not regard the proposal to make it easy for young people to bet as funny. Hon. Members are not taking the matter seriously. I do not in the least mind being described as a reactionary about this matter, nor do I mind being described as a Puritan.
It is utterly deplorable that any hon. Member should give any encouragement to young people to gamble, and it is utterly deplorable that we should have this frivolity and that this matter should be regarded as funny and humorous and something which we should encourage. I am not prepared to regard the Bill as a joke.
I have read the words which we are discussing and listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) attempting to exploit these words to be funny. The Government Amendment says:
… with the permission, whether general or special, of a parent or guardian …
It is not necessary that there shall be a specific permission. All that is necessary is that there shall be a general permission.

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend seems to be attacking me personally. He is attacking me on the point of "special" and "generail". The purpose of the Amendment, to which, I am sure, my hon. Friend has paid close attention, is to leave out subsection (3), and I was devoting myself to that argument. I am sure that my hon. Friend has read the Bill very carefully and will appreciate that I was arguing that if one was in a room when gaming was going on among four people who were aged 17, as in a hospital ward, say, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) reminded me, an offence is committed by all the people in the room. I respect my hon. Friend's views, but I was not making this a laughing stock but was drawn into this argument by the example of others.
The issue we are discussing goes far wider than the use of "special" or general", because other people can be brought in. If there has been humour and laughing about this matter, that is because—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I remind the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) that on Report he can speak only once on Amendment. I thought that he had risen to deal with a personal point.

Mr. Curran: There is no reason why my hon. Friend should raise the temperature of the discussion. I am saying that if parents give a general permission to children to bet, that is something which is perfectly intelligible, but it does not justify my hon. Friend in reducing the argument, reductio ad absurdum.
I rise, not to make debating points about this, but to emphasise what I think is the reality of the matter. Any attempt to limit gambling and betting by people under 18 is socially desirable. The fact that it cannot be done completely is no reason for not trying to do it.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that by legislation we should stop people from taking their children to point-to-point races? Would he introduce legislation to stop people from engaging with their children in the promotion of any form of pools betting? Would he also stop them from going to the greyhound races, or indeed taking part in any other betting activity? My argument was addressed to the question, why should we pick out cards when every other aspect is open to the same argument?

Mr. Curran: It is true that there is no method of constructing a logical law about betting. No matter how the law is constructed, there will be holes in it, and it will always be possible to criticise it. I agree that it is not possible in fact, and in practice, to lay down a universal rule about betting to which there will not be many exceptions. I am saying only that it is socially desirable to seek, within the limits of the practicable, to restrict rather than to encourage betting by young people.

Mr. A. V. Hilton: Like the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran), I did not take part in the discussions in Committee. I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said. I have listened to him many times and watched him many times on television.

Mr. David Griffiths: And disagreed with him.

Mr. Hilton: On those occasions I wondered if there was anything about which I could agree with him, but I am glad now to follow him on some of the lines that he has taken. I thank him for the stand he has taken, and especially for castigating, if that is the right word, some of the hon. Members on both sides of the House for the fun that they seemed to be getting out of this important subject.
Four or five hon. Members have told us of their experience at school. They all went to different schools from the one that I attended, and apparently at a different time, because I went to one of these schools that we were discussing yesterday and about which I had hoped to speak. I was unlucky. No youngsters attending the school to which I went were able to engage in gambling of any sort, because at that time, in the early 'twenties, unemployment was rife. I came from a home which was hit during that period, and there was no question of youngsters of my age indulging in gambling at school.
I am glad about that, because I should have hated to have attended some of these schools which have been referred to this afternoon if practices of the sort that have been described were indulged in. I am proud that I was brought up in a different atmosphere to that referred to by some hon. Members this afternoon. I was brought up in a very poor Methodist home, and we believe that gambling is wrong. I agree with the hon. Member for Uxbridge that anything which makes gambling easier for young people is harmful.
One hon. Gentleman said that when he was about four years old he used to go to the point-to-point races and put 6d. on a horse.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I do now.

Mr. Hilton: It may be that children from certain homes do that. I live in an area where point-to-point races are held about three miles away from my home. The majority of youngsters who attend the races do not come from working-class homes, but from homes—

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Rees-Davies: The Norfolk point-to-point races are among the finest in the country. I have been there, and I


have seen scores of children, four, five and six years old, at the races. I am sure that any hon. Member who has any knowledge of racing in Norfolk and Suffolk will confirm that often children in arms go to point-to-point races, and that many young children go to the Tote and put on a few shillings.

Mr. Hilton: The hon. Gentleman has more experience of this than I have. I confess that I do not attend point-to-point races, but it is my impression that ordinary youngsters do not attend these meetings.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Children of all classes attend them.

Mr. Hilton: I am, of course, open to correction.
I am opposed to gambling. I have attended a racecourse only once. I did not have a bet; I went to see what went on. I also went to a dog track without having a bet, and I confess that there were youngsters present, but after seeing them I was more convinced than ever that there were far better things to do than to indulge in gambling.
We used to play cards at home. We were a poor family. My parents played cards with us youngsters, but we did not gamble, and I am sure that we had as much fun from our games for love as any gambler.
Youngsters will learn this gambling business, but let us not make it easier for them to do so. I appreciate that we will not stamp out gambling, but for goodness' sake let us not do anything which will bring temptation near to our youngsters.

Mr. Paget: I respect my hon. Friend's point of view. He thinks it is wrong for children to play cards, even for pennies. I do not. Does my hon. Friend think that children playing cards for pennies, or whatever it may be, should be a matter for the police? Is it not a matter for the parents?

Mr. Hilton: Yes, but I am talking about the adverse effect that gambling has on children. I will leave it to my hon. and learned Friend to decide whether it is a question for the police or for the parents.

Mr. Ray Mawby: We are in danger of falling out with one another on things about which there is

a great deal of agreement. As the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) said, each of us has different views about gaming. We also have different views about what gaming means. If we consider the strict letter of the law, gaming covers a wide variety of activities which are indulged in by many people without them knowing that they are gaming.
Some of my constituents in the working men's club in my constituency were concerned when they read what my right hon. Friend said in Committee, that dominoes was not a game of skill but was a game of chance. Until then they were convinced—and in fact, they still are—that dominoes was a game of skill. We are, therefore, in the position that we are dealing with what the law means by gaming. If four people decide to have a game of bridge, and decide that they will have a small stake on the side, they are indulging in gaming just as much as the person who goes into a casino and has a go at roulette.
It is important that the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend should be amended at least to the extent suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) so that it could cover this point and gambling could take place in a private dwelling-house and other similar places and that young persons could take part with the permission of their parents or guardian.
I should be the last to suggest that we should not allow the parent or guardian to have the final say about the activities of their children. There are many parents who make certain that their children are kept away from gambling activities because they consider it would encourage the children to think that they can get "summat for nowt". I think it right that parents should take that view.
We should aim at moderation in these things. In themselves, drinking, betting and gambling are not wrong, provided that they are indulged in in moderation. Otherwise they can impose a great burden and in some cases they may become a great sin. By accepting the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet we should be meeting the views of many parents.

Miss Alice Bacon: The Committee stage of this Bill was marked by a number of reminiscences from hon. Members about how they spent or misspent their youth, and we seem to be continuing those reminiscences this afternoon.
As drafted, subsection (3) would prohibit gaming by anyone under the age of 18, which we consider is going too far. We also consider that the Government Amendment is too restricted, and so we have put down an Amendment to it. I think our Amendment must have been read wrongly by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). The Amendment goes some way to meet the points raised by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet, because its acceptance would make it possible for gaming in moderation to take place in holiday camps, and so on, when parents were present. It would enable gaming to take place in railway carriages, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Southend, West.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I did not refer to the hon. Lady's Amendment, it was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). I appreciate what is the intention of the hon. Lady, but I do not think it is achieved by the Amendment.

Miss Bacon: We have to strike a balance between a situation in which it would be possible for young persons under 18 to go into a gaming house—I do not think anyone would wish that to happen—and the prohibition of gaming altogether.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet said that it is no use thinking one can be any good at games if one does not start early. But my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) indicated that one may become proficient at cards or any other game merely by playing them and there is no need to play for stakes. It is only when a game is played for stakes that it becomes gaming. I consider that the Government Amendment improves the present wording of subsection (3), but it would be made much better were our Amendment accepted. In effect, that would make it legal for gaming by persons under 18 to take place not only

in a dwelling house but in any other place—a boarding house or hotel for example—provided a parent or guardian was present and that the consent of the parent or guardian had been obtained.
We all wish to prevent people congregating at gaming parties, but on the other hand we do not want to say that in a dwelling house, or anywhere where parents were present, girls and boys under 18 should be prohibited from taking part in a game of cards. We believe our Amendment to the Government Amendment would meet that point of view.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: Would not the hon. Lady agree that the Amendment would permit persons under 18 to play any form of game provided that the parent or guardian was present?

Miss Bacon: I appreciate that. I think that the acceptance of the Amendment would meet many of the views which have been expressed. If parents like to take their children with them to a boarding house, or a hotel or some other place, we believe that the responsibility for doing so should rest upon them. We do not want to prohibit all gaming by people under 18 for a modest stake of 3d. or 6d. in dwelling houses or in the presence of their parents. I hope that the Minister will indicate his willingness to accept our Amendment to the Government Amendment.

Mr. Vosper: We have had a wide expression of views on this Amendment. I understood my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) to suggest that the provisions of subsection (3) were introduced at a late stage during the Committee proceedings. If I understood him correctly, he was completely wrong in that assumption. This was part of the Bill as published last year and was in no way introduced during the Committee stage deliberations.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I apologise.

Mr. Vosper: I do not know of any issue, with the possible exception of gaming in public houses, upon which my right hon. Friend and I have received more representations than this question of the protection of young people. That concern was voiced by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran)


and by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton). Although many hon. Member have suggested that this prohibition in the Bill is unnecessary, I do not believe that represents the general view. Throughout the betting and gaming parts of the Bill one must have some safeguard for the protection of young people. During the Committee stage it was decided to insert a Clause regarding betting and young people, and I understood that my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet supported that. I therefore find it difficult to reconcile that with what he has said this afternoon.
Any gaming law is bound to have imperfections and be difficult to enforce. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) talked about playing cards for pennies and whist or bridge being played in the top forms at Eton, or something like that.
5.30 p.m.
If we are considering only those sort of practices there would be something to be said for deleting subsection (3), but the choice before the House is whether we are to allow unlimited gaming for young people or to have a more or less complete prohibition. There is no middle way except the compromise suggested on the Notice Paper today. There are, of course, dangers whatever we do. If we had the prohibition intended in the Bill it will be possible for some of the more modest practices which have been suggested in the debate to take place, but, if we deleted subsection (3) it would be possible for young people to take part in any form of gaming for unlimited stakes, sometimes to be at the mercy of unscrupulous people.
My hon. Friend suggested that young people of this age group have not the surplus spending power to take part in these activities, but, as one concerned with the youth service, I find that rather hard to accapt. I believe there is a real risk here. Although I accept his view that this is a general liberalising Measure, the Royal Commission and the Government have throughout made it clear that there must be adequate safeguards from time to time and this is one of the Clauses giving such a safeguard.
When the Committee considered this provision, the only point raised was that by my hon. Friend the Member for

Southend, West (Mr. Channon), who was particularly concerned about the young person taking part in bridge or whist with his parents or in his own home. In general, I understood that the Committee was very sympathetic to that, but equally I understood that the Committee was not desirous of going further and removing the prohibition; nor did I understand my hon. Friend at that point. If he had to make a choice between leaving the subsection as it was or removing it, he would leave it. The Amendment we have put on the Notice Paper meets the point and would enable a young person to take part in gaming subject to conditions.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet has urged me to do two things. The first is to delete subsection (3). I am not prepared to do that. That would be going too far and would be acting against the principle of having safeguards in this Bill. He has urged me as an alternative to have only one condition, to leave out "and" and to insert "or". He put that Amendment on the Notice Paper at a late stage— only this morning. I think that even to accept that would be making a gap in the Bill which would be too large to meet the general wishes of the community.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Will my right hon. Friend deal with the desperately difficult question, if he does not accept that, of what is to happen to any of these camps where children take part in gaming with their parents?

Mr. Vosper: I am sympathetic towards the point about the camps, but, if I had to choose between meeting the wishes of the camp promoters and those who take part and retaining the general safeguard against gaming by young people, I should choose the latter. I believe there is a partial compromise suggested by the Amendment to the Amendment which is in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon). I think her Amendment goes some way to help my hon. Friend in respect of those under 18 who take part in gaming in the presence of their parents. That would be additional to the conditions introduced in the Government Amendment and I think would help my hon. Friend. I do not suggest that it meets the point he raised completely, but it would be a reasonable alternative.


Therefore, I suggest that subsection (3) should stand in the Bill and that the House, in order to meet the point raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West, should go a little further and accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Lady, but not go further on this occasion.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed: In page 12, line 12, at end insert:
except where both the following conditions are satisfied, that is to say—

(a) that the gaming takes place in a private dwelling-house; and
(b) that any such person taking part in the gaming does so with the permission, whether general or special, of a parent or guardian of that person".—[Mr. Vosper.]

Question proposed, That those words be there inserted in the Bill.

Amendment to the proposed words made: In line 3, after "dwelling-house", insert:
or in the presence of a parent or guardian of that person".—[Miss Bacon.]

Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, in page 13, to leave out lines 19 to 29 and to insert:
and
(c) that no person took part in the gaining who was not either—

(i) a member of the club in pursuance of an application or nomination for membership made more than twenty-four hours before the gaming began; or
(ii) a bona fide guest of such a member; and


(d) that the club is so constituted and conducted, both as regards membership and otherwise, as not to be of a merely temporary character".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient to discuss with this Amendment the following two Amendments: In page 13, line 20 after "in", insert "regular"; and in page 13, line 28 after "club", insert:
or a member of an institution affiliated to the club".

Mr. Vosper: During our deliberations in Committee hon. Members on both sides felt that the provisions for gaming in clubs were, if anything, too liberal and that a real danger existed in subsection (7) of what then was Clause 10

and is now a later Clause in that the formation of a bogus club specifically for the purpose of gaming would be too easy. Therefore, among other things during the Committee stage, the Government introduced for discussion a definition of a club simply for the purposes of this part of the Bill. I undertook, when pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) and several hon. Members opposite, to consult the club organisations, and in particular my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, and to amend the definition in the light of any observations received.
The result of that consultation is the Amendment which I have now moved. The Attorney-General felt that the definition of a club might be embarrassing for other legislation and that possibly the same purpose could be served by inserting additional conditions in the Bill rather than by the form of a definition. Therefore, the Amendment before the House is not a definition of a club as it appears in the Bill at the moment, but further conditions which must be complied with before a club can take advantage of the provisions in the Bill whereby it can charge a subscription or card money for taking part in gaming. The contents of those conditions differ very little from the contents of the definition which appears in the Bill itself.
The discussions with the various club organisations produced two points. The first was that the condition that a person must be a member for 48 hours was too restrictive. This was a point urged on me by both sides of the Committee. Therefore, in the Amendment which we are considering the period of 48 hours has been reduced to one of 24 hours. The second suggestion made by two of the club organisations was that the definition, or words, should apply only to a genuine membership of the club. We felt unable to accept that because, quite obviously, much of this gaming takes place quite legitimately in proprietary clubs. Therefore the Amendment provides two additional conditions which must be complied with before gaming can take place in a club and the club take advantage of the concessions available. The 48-hour period has been changed to one of 24 hours and, before that period of 24 hours, it will be perfectly possible for the member


to enjoy the other facilities of the club, but not for him to take part in gaming. Generally the wording has been slightly improved in the light of the observations made in the Committee.

Mr. Paget: What is meant by the words "a bona fide guest"? I should have thought anybody who played cards in a club was either a member or a guest. If he were not a guest, the club members would not play with him.

Mr. Vosper: The intention is that a guest should be someone who does not just appear at the door of the club and seek admission by being the guest of the manager, but a genuine guest of the club. It is not a very difficult point of definition and certainly not one which was discussed in Committee.
When considering the context of this Amendment the House might wonder what it is all about. It was undoubtedly the feeling in the Committee that the conditions for gaming in clubs were too generous. The Amendment tightens the conditions and makes it more difficult for the bogus club, which may be concerned purely with the organisation of gaming, to come into operation.
I have noted Amendments on this subject which have been tabled by hon. Members opposite and by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet, and I propose to deal with them in due course.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. It would help the House and save time if the right hon. Gentleman now indicated what his attitude will be towards those Amendments. If he does not intend to accept them, we could get them out of the way now.

Miss Bacon: I think that all the hon. Members who were in the Committee will agree that the question of the definition of a club was one of the most difficult questions with which we had to deal. It occupied a great deal of time. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the trouble which he has taken in consulting all the various organisations. We agree that his Amendment improves the position.
We have put other Amendments on the Order Paper on the same subject. For example, we believe that the insertion of the word "regular" after the word

"in" in line 20, and the insertion of the words "a regular", having left out the word "an", in line 21, would make the position much clearer.
We are very much concerned about the position of the working men's clubs, and for this reason we have put down an Amendment in line 28, after "club" to insert
or a member of an institution affiliated to the club".
Many of the working men's clubs in the country are affiliated to the Club and Institute Union. If he has a membership card of that union, together with what is called a pass card showing that he has paid his subscriptions for the year, a member of any club so affiliated in any part of the country may enter any other club so affiliated.
We should like to establish without any doubt whether such a person entering another club would be covered by the Act. To make that clear we should like to insert the words which we have put on the Order Paper. This would mean that any member of a working men's club affiliated to the Club and Institute Union, when he visited another club so affiliated to the union, could take part in any games being played in that club without being prosecuted. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that Amendment, for I am certain that it will affect many thousands of people who belong to working men's clubs.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on attempting to do something which is extremely difficult— in defining a club, and succeeding to a very large extent. There are a few remarks of some import which I want to make, and in them I associate myself largely with the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon).
I have put down an Amendment, in line 21, to leave out from the beginning to "which" in line 22. The purpose of it is to leave out the words
being an association which is not merely of a temporary character and".
In fact, that Amendment is acceptable to the Government in that it comes out in their own definition in introducing their own words from lines 19 to 29. I warmly welcome the general definition


as it stands and the first part of the Government's Amendment.
In order to get this into perspective, particularly for those who have not followed this discussion, it is essential to define what are proprietary clubs. The Bill as it stands rightly says
the expression 'club' means a number of persons in association with one another for a common purpose …".
It goes on to say "which is so organised that" a person must have been a member for at least 24 hours before the gaming began; or a bona fide guest of such a member. It goes on to say, too, that the club must be
so constituted and conducted, both as regards membership and otherwise, as not to be of a merely temporary character.
The difficulty is that clubs may be clubs for only a very short time, or they may be clubs for the year, or they may be clubs the character of which is permanent but some people are members of them for only a very short time. My right hon. Friend's definition lays it down that the club shall be
so constituted and conducted, both as regards membership and otherwise, as not to be of a merely temporary character.
This raises a very serious matter, just as the last Amendment raised the question of youths and children being in the boarding houses and camps. There is a pattern existing throughout the country which can easily be disturbed if the definition is wrong. The pattern of the clubs to which the hon. Lady referred and that of the camps is precisely the same.
The club works in this way: you pay your annual membership fee but you become only a temporary club member. In the camps, if you are staying for only a week or a fortnight, you are a club member for only a week or a fortnight. The words which the Government propose are
that the club is so constituted and conducted … as not to be of a merely temporary character.
So far that definition is satisfactory, for in all these cases, the clubs to which the hon. Lady referred and the holiday camp clubs of Warner's, Butlin's and elsewhere are not" of a merely temporary character". But my right hon. Friend has also sought to include the words
both as regards membership and otherwise";

and the phrase therefore reads
that the club is so constituted and conducted, both as regards membership and otherwise, as not to be of a merely temporary character.
That could cause considerable difficulty. It would mean that if a person were a temporary member of a club for. the purpose of gaming, he could be committing an offence.

Mr. J. T. Price: I know that the hon. Member is not deliberately trying to bedevil the issue, but before he bedevils it any further, will he give an illustration of what he regards as a typical temporary club, as distinct from temporary membership?

Mr. Rees-Davies: My right hon. Friend wants to stop the fly-by-night clubs—and I agree with him. He wants to give a definition of a proprietary club which will prevent people from opening for a week or a fortnight in the season, at the seaside, for example, and then closing. I agree with my right hon. Friend in wishing to stop such clubs, but what I am afraid he will also stop is the club which is of a permanent character but has a temporary membership, such as the clubs at Warner's or Butlin's. In such clubs the only permanent members are the staff, but someone who goes to the camp as a visitor becomes a temporary member. The club always remains in existence but it has only a temporary membership. If I go to Regent Street tomorrow and then decide that I shall go to the camp, for example, at Margate, I shall become a member of that club, but only a temporary member, although the Butlin's club there is of a permanent character.
The subsection at present reads as follows. I propose to read it in full, because I think that we are ad idem on what we aim to achieve. It says:
In this subsection, the expression 'club' means a number of persons in association with one another for a common purpose …
That is the first thing. That is all right. It continues:
and which is so organised that

(i) a period of not less than forty-eight hours must elapse between a person's application or nomination for membership of the club and his first enjoyment of the privileges thereof; and
(ii) no person who is not a member, or a bona fide guest of a member, of the club is permitted to enjoy any facilities afforded by the club for gaming."




The Government's Amendment reads:
and
(c) that no person took part in the gaming who was not either—
(i) a member of the club in pursuance of an application or nomination for membership made more than twenty-four hours before the gaming began.
That has been reduced from 48 to 24 hours. It continues:
or (ii) a bona fide guest of such a member".
This is the difficulty:
and
(d) that the club is so constituted and conducted, both as regards membership and otherwise, as not to be of a merely temporary character.
I agree entirely that we do not want clubs of a temporary character, but at the same time it may be desirable for a member to be a temporary member. Certain clubs may have only country members. Others may have temporary members. It happens in all the camps and seaside resorts that the clubs may retain a permanent character, but the membership may be only a temporary one. The words here are:
that the club is so constituted and conducted, both as regards membership and otherwise, as not to be of a merely temporary character.
I have a perfectly open mind on this matter, and I realise that I may be quite wrong. What I fear is that we shall find the clubs which are perfectly proper and in which gaming takes place as an ancillary function, as in various camps, on the wrong side of this very brave definition, which I very much support.
I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will look carefully at it yet again to see whether it would not be right to exclude the words
both as regards membership and otherwise
or alternatively to ensure the elimination of the phrase "of a temporary character", because otherwise he has the whole matter admirably defined.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. I asked the Joint Under-Secretary if he would be kind enough to indicate the Government's attitude to the Amendments. He did not respond. That places me in a very great difficulty, because the Government's Amendment seeks to delete lines 19 to 29. The other Amendments which we are discussing with the Government Amendment relate to lines within that number.

If the Government's Amendment is accepted—one does not anticipate that the Government will fall on this issue —all the Amendments go, unless you, Sir, would allow my hon. Friends to move them again relating to the new numbers.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the Government Amendment is accepted, the other Amendments fall, because the lines to which the other Amendments relate will no longer be there.

Mr. Wigg: Further to that point of order. If all the other Amendments subsequently fall because the Government's Amendment is accepted, it would save a great deal of time and be of very considerable assistance to all hon. Members—certainly to myself—if we knew what the Government's attitude was.

Mr. Vosper: With permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, perhaps it would help if I did what the hon. Member suggested. Perhaps I should have done it initially.
It is true that most of the Amendments fall because of the drafting of the Government Amendment. I think that there are three separate points. The first point raised in the Amendment in page 13, line 28, regarding affiliation was argued in Committee. We have been into this very closely, because one obviously accepts that in principle. All my advice is to the effect that a member of a club which is a member of the Club and Institute Union is automatically a member of any other club in that organisation. Therefore, as was pointed out in Committee by the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), the membership card of a particular club makes the man a member of any other club for the purposes of the Bill. Therefore, that Amendment is unnecessary and the wording is sufficient to cover that. I have been into this most carefully, because I am anxious to meet that point.
The Amendment in page 13, line 21, is the complete opposite of what my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) wants to do. We have examined this Amendment. I think that the word "regular" in place of the word "temporary" would be too onerous, because it would require the members


of the club to attend regularly and not from time to time as they may wish to do so. If we inserted the word "regular" we would get into great difficulties with many perfectly normal clubs. I therefore hope that the hon. Lady will accept that the word "temporary" is adequate for our purpose.
I come to the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet. He looks at this from a different point of view. He is worried about the temporary nature of the club. That is a rather important provision in this Amendment, because it is designed to make quite certain that no fly-by-night club is allowed to take advantage of this provision. We must be quite clear that what we are concerned with here is not the legalisation of gaming. Gaming can go on in any club or organisation. We are concerned merely with those clubs which want to take advantage of the subsection, which enables them to make a charge for card money.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet says that if we leave in the word "temporary" it will be difficult for many seaside clubs. There are two points on that. I think that my hon. Friend accepts the first point, which is that the fact that a club meets only at certain times of the year would not appear to make it a temporary club. If there is a club in Margate which meets from April to September, it will not be ruled out on account of the Amendment. The second point is more difficult. My hon. Friend is concerned about the constantly changing membership of a club or a holiday camp. That is ruled out by the words in the Government's Amendment.
This is a difficult matter, but if I accept my hon. Friend's Amendment I shall be opening the door far too wide to other abuses which worried the Committee. Another point, similar to the point made on the last Amendment, is that if I were to meet the entire wishes of the promoters of holiday camps I should be in danger of going too far in the other direction. After all, we are concerned merely with the charging of admission or card money for gaming at a holiday camp. When this was discussed in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) rather suggested that holiday

camps would not take advantage of this Clause, but would take advantage of Clause 22, which deals with amusements with prizes. I do not know whether that is so. The opportunity is still open to holiday camps to apply for a licence and these conditions would not apply.
Furthermore, they can organise gaming or housey-housey without making an admission charge and raise the money in another way. They can, moreover, as I said earlier, take advantage of the provisions of the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act to raise their money, make a charge for gaming in that way, and fulfil the purposes which they now achieve in a slightly different manner.
I have been asked at a very late moment to receive a deputation on this point from the organisations concerned. I am perfectly prepared to do so. But my advice to the House at the moment is that to remove the word "temporary" would open the door too wide, and therefore the House should accept the Amendment standing in the Government's name.

Mr. Paget: I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. If the word "temporary" is removed, the door is absolutely wide open. I cannot see that it is any great hardship on the promoters of holidays camps not to be able to make a charge on housey-housey played in their camps. It seems a very trivial point, and one—

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Rees-Davies: The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) may say that, but has he taken the trouble to find out that, I think last year, upwards of £50,000—and I quote without having the figures in front of me—went to the National Playing Fields Association from the playing of housey-housey throughout these holiday camps, and that, in fact, all these games are based round a method of club membership—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that we are on the Report stage.

Mr. Paget: If the holiday camps organise their housey-housey on the basis that there is a subscription by the players to the National Playing Fields


Association, without profit to the holiday camp, that is not barred by this Clause. So much for that—we need not worry about it. There is nothing to prevent a subscription being taken from a gambler to a charity as long as there is no profit to the promoters, and that is not touched here.
The Joint Under-Secretary may be right in his advice that every affiliated club member is a member of the club for the purpose of the Clause, but does the right hon. Gentleman think that every working man knows that? When we can make the Bill intelligible or unintelligible, why not put in the word that makes it intelligible to the management committees of working men's clubs, many of whom will not appreciate that? We have only to insert the words "a member of a club or an affiliated body." It is such a tiny Amendment, but will make things easier for so many people that we should put it in, if that is the intention of the Bill.
I find the bona fide guest of a member a slightly difficult matter. If we find members of a club sitting at a table playing cards with people who are not members of the club, how on earth we are to set about proving that the non-members are not guests of the members is beyond my comprehension because, as I understand it, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. I do not see how people sitting down to play cards in a club can fail to be included in the description of members or in the description of guests of members. I should have thought that they must be one or the other. I am not at all sure whether that is so, and as the right hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to look at those two points when the Bill goes to another place, I should be very grateful to him if he would take it.

Mr. Wigg: I want to thank both the Home Secretary and the Joint Undersecretary for this Amendment. They have done much better than I thought they would. I did not think it possible to get such an acceptable form of words. The Amendment may make a very real difference to the management of genuine clubs, and do a lot to prevent the emergence of undesirable clubs. In Committee, we pressed the Government rather hard on this point. We urged them to consult interested bodies whose only concern is the good management

of the clubs. The Government have done that, and all I say to them is, "Thank you very much."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17. —(GAMING MACHINES.)

Mr. John M. Temple: I beg to move, in page 14, line 6, at the end to insert:
or which are used wholly or mainly by persons under the age of eighteen years".
This Clause is wholly devoted to the operation of gaming machines, and this limited Amendment seeks to preclude the possibility of their being placed and used in clubs or premises mainly or wholly used by persons under 18 years of age. It is significant that the country is at present on the verge of a great expansion in the youth service, and whilst it is generally appreciated that those in charge of youth organisations will be responsible people, I will show that in two ways it may be possible for gaming machines to be used in the premises used by the young persons I have mentioned.
I believe that the only gaming machine in common use in this country at present is one normally called a "fruit machine", and this machine is particularly attractive to young people. Although, under the Clause, the maximum stake will be 6d., nevertheless, large amounts of money can go into those machines. As I understand it, the fruit machine is operated by a lever which sets in motion a series of revolving drums. If a certain combination of characters—such as three lemons —come on the drums in a line, a certain dividend is paid.
There comes a moment, however, when the jackpot is about to be paid out. Situated at the bottom of the machine there is a glass container in which one can see the jackpot money accumulate, and when the jackpot is imminent the members of the club where the machine is situated get what is known as "jackpot fever". When "jackpot fever" overtakes them, the play becomes fast and furious.
As I say, I do not think that responsible members of a youth organisation will install these things, but fruit machines are renowned as money raisers, and I can well understand someone who might be extremely keen to get


extra facilities for the youth organisation—for example, further equipment— rather overlooking the fact that he was introducing gambling by having the machines in the club. Those are the organisers whose ideals are laudable, but who fall for the idea of raising money by means of gambling.
There will be the other type of youth organisation that will not necessarily be run by people with the same high ideals. I imagine that those people will seek to install the machines and use the money gained by their use to improve the facilities of the club. On both grounds, I believe it to be desirable that we should write into the Clause words to make it impossible for these fruit machines, or gambling machines of any nature—which may be invented—to be placed in youth clubs.
My right hon. Friend said earlier that we must have safeguards for young people, and he may, therefore, find himself in agreement with this Amendment. It is our duty to prevent gaming machines being used in youth clubs. This is an opportunity for the House to act with common-sense, and I hope that the opportunity will not be missed. I may add that the Amendment has the full support of the Council of Churches.
I hope that, for all those reasons, the House will feel able to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Vosper: Like my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple), I sincerely hope that those responsible for the organisation of youth clubs will not even contemplate having fruit or equivalent machines in the youth clubs. My hon. Friend feels that there is a risk, and as his Amendment is consonant with Amendments to other parts of the Bill with respect to young people, the Government are prepared to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18.—(GAMING IN PUBLIC PLACES.)

Miss Bacon: I beg to move, in page 14, line 31, after "gaming", to insert:
(otherwise than by playing dominoes)".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think it would be for the convenience of the House if with this Amendment we discussed the

Amendment in Clause 24, page 18, line 45, at end insert:
For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that dominoes is a lawful game.

Miss Bacon: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
My Amendment is designed to rectify a curious anomaly in the Bill as it now stands. While it is legal to play darts and billiards in a public house for stakes, it is quite illegal to play dominoes for stakes. This is entirely wrong. It means that in future if anyone goes into a public house and bets a pint of beer on a game of darts or a game of billiards, that will be quite legal, but if anyone bets a pint of beer on a game of dominoes, that will be entirely illegal.
Of all the extraordinary speeches that we heard in Committee, the most extraordinary was the speech of the right hon. Gentleman on this point. He has a great deal of good sound common sense, but on this occasion he had to give way to the legal arguments of the lawyers who seemed to be in the shadowy background. Gaming in licensed premises was made unlawful by Section 141 of the Licensing Act, 1953. We do not want to see unrestricted gaming in licensed premises. A Government Amendment in Committee brought gaming in public houses into line with the rest of Part II of the Bill, which meant, in effect, that all games of skill were exempted; but the right hon. Gentleman in his wisdom said that, while darts and billiards were games of pure skill, dominoes was a game of chance.

Mr. Vosper: Skill and chance.

Miss Bacon: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong there. I believe that his words were that it was a game of pure chance. I looked it up a little while ago, but I may be wrong.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Is darts a game of pure skill?

Miss Bacon: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) suggests, it might be argued that darts was not absolutely a game of skill. There is, I suggest, a good measure of chance even in a game of darts. There is certainly a good deal of skill in a game of dominoes. There is, in fact, no such game as dominoes, just as there is no such game as cards. There are various games played with dominoes. One I remember from long ago which I used to


play with my grandfather is called "Fives and threes", and that certainly seemed to require a good deal of arithmetical skill. Dominoes is played by very many old people, usually for a pint of beer or the odd shilling.
It is entirely wrong to retain this anomaly in the Bill. We must be sensible and realistic. Games of darts, billiards or dominoes for a pint or the odd shilling or two have been played regularly throughout the country, even though it was illegal to do so. I am fairly certain that, even if the Bill in its present form goes through, these games will still be played, dominoes as well as darts and billiards.
We should not make asses of ourselves but should pass laws which will be carried out. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, to make a concession here and include dominoes, which is played so much in our public houses by old people, and bring the game into line with darts and billiards.

Sir James Duncan: I support the hon. Lady's Amendment. Indeed, I have an Amendment down with the same object, to rectify the curious anomaly which has arisen in the law. The hon. Lady will be interested to refer to column 1090 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings in Committee, where my right hon. Friend is reported as saying:
I am advised that dominoes is not a game of pure skill".—(OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 29th March, 1960; c. 1090.]
I went to my local "pub" last Saturday evening and I there met a friend whom I asked to remind me how to play dominoes. We sat down and played three games together. I regret to say that I lost handsomely in every game. My friend said to me, "You have forgotten how to play. It is surprising that I won so easily, because I am only an amateur." I am not prepared to say that dominoes is not a game of pure skill. Certainly, from my experience of it, it is a game of material skill. The only element of chance seems to be in the drawing of the dominoes before one starts the game.
Of course, there are lots of ways round the law. I believe that we played quite legally on that occasion in the "pub". I asked the publican for the box of dominoes. He said, "Here you are, but do not play for money." He was safe-

guarding himself. We played our game and we did not have a drink. But, having lost three games, I then stood my friend a drink. As far as I understand it, that is legal.

Mr. Rees-Davies: No, it is not.

Sir J. Duncan: We finished our game and retired to the bar.

Mr. Rees-Davies: That would probably be all right.

6.15 p.m.

Sir J. Duncan: As far as I know, that is legal, because there is no relationship between the game and my standing my friend a drink.
This all seems rather silly. The Scottish Licensed Victuallers' Association is very keen to have the game legalised and put on the same sort of basis as darts in Scotland. I support the intention of the Amendment, even if its wording is not quite right. Licensees in Scotland have had their troubles with clubs. According to all my information, it seems that dominoes is the one game which is played in all bars in Scotland. The law as it stands at present is really rather silly, and we can get round it if we want to. We should not make the law an ass. Let us make it sensible by accepting the hon. Lady's Amendment or words to a similar effect.

Mr. William Blyton: I do not know who is the Government's adviser about dominoes, but I have come to the conclusion that he can never have played the game. The game of "Fives and threes", which is very popular in all parts of the country, takes a great deal more skill, if one wants to win, than chess, that monotonous game which I see played in the Smoke Room so often. "Fives and threes" requires more skill than playing draughts in trying to think what the next moves will be.
The fact is that in every public house and club in England there is a dominoes set in the bar. Although under the Act we are repealing men could be fined for playing dominoes for a stake, I question that in the last 20 years there have been ten prosecutions for playing dominoes in licensed premises. What harm is there in men who are having a glass of beer in their leisure time playing dominoes for 6d. or 1s. a corner? They do it now.


The Home Secretary will not, perhaps, be surprised to know that if it is known that the police are coming on their weekly visitation the word goes round the " bush telegraph" and, when the game of dominoes is finished, the loser pays the winner his money after the police have gone. I believe that the penalty is £50 if one is caught, but if the law is maintained as it is these games will still go on. The ordinary working man, either in a club or a public house, will be threatened, because if a policeman does not like him he will be brought before a court and he can be fined £50. This is bringing the matter to a fine art.
I have played dominoes for 41 years. I learned the game in the Navy at 3d. a corner. I have often played it for a shilling a corner. I see no harm in it. I am prepared to sit down with the Government's advisers and give them a game of "Fives and threes" and show them how skilful it is. It is a good, skilful game. Why there should be a penalty for playing it I do not know.
An uncle of mine of 78 was caught playing dominoes at 3d. a corner with three old men whose ages totalled 305. When I went to see the chief constable about it, he said to me, "I do not want to take this case into court. I shall be laughed out". I say to the Home Secretary quite frankly that he will not stop the British working man playing dominoes for 6d. or 1s. a corner either in public houses or in clubs. If the Government want to liberalise betting and gaming, they should go after the bid lads, not the ordinary working man who plays for 6d. a corner.

Mr. Vosper: If the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) and I could play dominoes with each of us holding exactly the same dominoes, which I understand is not possible, I would accept that dominoes is a game of skill.

Mr. Blyton: Fives and threes is a game of skill, but dominoes are out.

Mr. Vosper: As my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) said, the chance lies in the draw, just as it does in the dealing of cards for whist and bridge.
I had better start at an earlier stage, because this is by far the most difficult Amendment on the Notice Paper so far.

I had better explain why. At present everything that is done in the way of gaming in public houses is illegal. The playing of darts for money is illegal. The Royal Commission considered this matter and in paragraph 421 came to a very definite decision. That paragraph states:
The association of gaming with the consumption of alcoholic liquor increases the danger that the player will be led to gamble to excess and we think that the existing prohibition of gaming on licensed premises should be maintained.
That would be the complete prohibition which goes back to when the Bill was first introduced, not as it is now before the House. When the Government introduced the Bill they followed the advice of the Royal Commission and maintained the existing prohibition on all gaming in public houses, including the playing of games of skill for money.
In Committee, as a result of representations made to me by hon. Members on both sides, we decided that it would not be unreasonable to make some concessions to bring the law more into line with the existing practice. An Amendment was therefore moved to bring gaming in public houses into line with Part II. This was accepted by the Committee.
Briefly, that Amendment had four effects. First, it became possible to play games of skill in the bar of a public house. Secondly, it became possible to play any games of skill or skill and chance in any part of a public house, including the bar, under the conditions laid down by the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act. Thirdly, it became possible for residents in a hotel or in a public house to take part in any gaming in the residential part of the public house or hotel. Fourthly, it became possible for a room in the public house or hotel to be set aside for gaming. Provided members of the public are not admitted without prior application, any form of gaming could take place.
That was a considerable advance on the Bill as introduced and a considerable step towards what is the existing practice. Generally speaking, the Committee welcomed the Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) wanted to go further and legalise all gaming in any public house in flat contradiction to the


Royal Commission's recommendations. The Committee thought that that would be going too far. Generally speaking, I think that these improvements have been acceptable to the House, to the licensed victuallers and to the trade in general.
I now come to the difficult point raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon). By making public houses subject to Part II, it then becomes possible to play games of skill in the bar of a public house, but not games of skill and chance because of another Clause which prohibits those games being played in a place to which members of the public have access. Therefore, in the public part of a public house, with the exception of a small gaming party under the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act, it is not possible to play games of skill and chance under the Bill as it stands.
The hon. Lady by a simple Amendment seeks to bring in dominoes. Her Amendment probably goes further than she wishes because it would make it possible to play dominoes in any street or public place. I think that the House is concerned with the playing of dominoes in a public house. The method that she has chosen is of naming one game. As the hon. Lady has accompanied me through 25 sittings on the Bill, she will realise that the whole foundation of the approach of the Royal Commission and of the Government to gaming is that no game shall be named in itself. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) wanted to name whist, which would have solved many of our problems, but once we start naming a game we go back to the existing law which has been so difficult to enforce. The whole approach has been against naming a game.
The simple differentiation between games of skill and games of skill and chance in the bar of a public house was introduced—

Mr. Paget: To put in the word "dominoes" is not naming a game any more than it is when a person says that he plays cards. There is a whole series of games with dominoes.

Mr. Vosper: I was coming to that point, which I think is a rather serious aspect of this problem.
The first objection to accepting the Amendment is simple. For the first time

in the Bill a particular game is named, or, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said, possibly not a game but a practice is named. The first difficulty is: what are dominoes? As the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring and I play, no doubt it is a simple and innocuous game, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees Davies) said in Committee, dominoes itself could be built up into any form of extreme gambling. If a provision along the lines of the Amendment is introduced into the Bill, one opens the field to all sorts of practices quite beyond what hon. Members on both sides have in mind.
The second point is: why stop at dominoes? I am told that in many public houses cribbage is the more popular game. There may possibly be a desire to play pontoon and poker. Is it a fact that dominoes is the only game of skill and chance which, on the whole, the people want to play in public houses? In other words, if one could define dominoes in accordance with the existing practice and restrict it to that without any extremes, would one be driven into naming further games and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley wanted, legalising all forms of gaming in public houses? That is the difficulty, as I am sure the hon. Lady realises.
There is possibly the further point that there has been considerable opposition to making the advance that we have made in regard to public houses. We have gone beyond the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and I have had representations against this. If one goes into the field of gaming, in the form of skill and chance in the bar of a public house, one is opening the door even wider. There are some sections of the community who would resent that approach.
The position as it stands is not entirely unreasonable. It will be possible to play dominoes according to the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus played it on Saturday in accordance with that Act. I accept that probably most people do not play it in that way at the moment. All that one has to do is put in a contribution at the beginning and the winner takes the kitty


at the end. The difference is that one does not stake as one goes along and there is a limit to what can be won. It is perfectly possible to play it that way. It is also possible to play it in some form of club or room behind the public house, provided that the casual visitors are not admitted. The regular habitué of a public house could, by organisation with the landlord, have a room in which to take part in dominoes. Therefore, there are possibilities under the existing legislation.
6.30 p.m.
The House must consider whether it is necessary to go further at the risk of opening the field to much wider practices and bringing in all sorts of other games and, probably, in the long run, going as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley wanted to go and legalising all forms of gaming in public houses. That is the issue. It is not a simple drafting Amendment to include dominoes. It has much wider implications than that.

Mr. Fletcher: The Joint Under-Secretary's reasons for asking the House to reject the Amendment were most unsatisfactory and I hope that on reconsideration the Home Secretary will be prepared to consider what is involved. The Joint Under-Secretary has told us that, when we considered the matter in Committee, he assented to representations that were made on both sides of the Committee that there should be some measure of liberalising the present practice in public houses. The right hon. Gentleman has explained that, as a result of the Amendments which he himself introduced, he has made substantial departures from the recommendations of the Royal Commission. Therefore, it is not very convincing for the right hon. Gentleman, towards the end of his argument, to say that we must have regard to what the Royal Commission said, because we have departed from that.
In Committee, we accepted that the arguments put forward by the Royal Commission directed to the restriction of games in public houses were unsound, and the right hon. Gentleman himself has introduced Amendments which do four things. They permit games of skill in the bar of a public house. They enable dominoes to be played in the bar of a public house under the provisions of the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act, which are very restricted.

Residents in a hotel or public house can play any game of either skill or chance and even in a public house a room can be set aside for the playing of games of pure chance provided that members of the public who are not otherwise in the public house do not have access.
Therefore, we are now contemplating under the Bill a totally different kind of public house from the old-fashioned one. Unless the Amendment is accepted, we shall be making a serious departure from the principles which the Home Secretary himself enunciated in a debate which we had a few weeks ago on the licensing system. He was then advocating, as were hon. Members on both sides, a system under which the old-fashioned public house, which was rather drab and uncomfortable and in which as a rule nothing except drinking took place, should in modern times be replaced, as is already the case in a great many of the new towns and newly built-up areas, by a kind of modern public house to which a man can take his wife and members of his family, which is not unpleasant and in which there are other amenities besides drinking. Nobody wants excessive drinking or excessive gambling, but one of the defects of restricting what can be properly done in a public house is to increase the tendency to do nothing but drink in a public house.
I cannot see why there is any more harm in playing dominoes in a public house than there is in playing darts. That is the simple issue before the Committee. A great many people want to play dominoes in the "pub" in the same way that a great many other people want to play darts. It is a social custom for them to play dominoes. The issue that this House has to decide is why they should not play dominoes if they want to. It cannot be suggested that there is anything wrong or wicked about playing dominoes.
The Joint Under-Secretary has repeated a lot of technical, rather bureaucratic arguments against the Amendment. He said that it would open the door to all kinds of gaming in a public house, but it would do nothing of the sort. There is a big distinction between the playing of dominoes, which is a simple game generally played for small stakes, and the playing of cards, which leads to gaming for high stakes. Therefore,


there is no reason whatever to think that legalising the system by which people quite harmlessly play dominoes in a "pub" for small stakes would in any way lead to excessive, or even any, card gambling in "pubs". For one thing, it would be illegal.

Mr. Vosper: Possibly, the hon. Member misunderstood me. I suggested that acceptance of the Amendment would lead to pressure for other games to be played in the public house and I instanced cribbage.

Mr. Fletcher: I do not think it would. I have certain reservations about cribbage. It is not played for high stakes. Cribbage is a modest pastime. I play it myself. I play chess too, but not for money, because few people play chess for money. Some do, but often it is played regardless of any stake on the game. The same is largely true of cribbage. Therefore, dominoes and cribbage are simple, harmless games which, if people want to play them in public houses, they should be entitle to play.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Would the hon. Member like to give us his definition of what is dominoes? I think he would find it absolutely impossible.

Mr. Fletcher: I am not suggesting that there should be any definition of dominoes. There are plenty of phrases in the Bill which are not defined. We had the greatest difficulty in pursuading the right hon. Gentleman to include a definition of "club".

Mr. Rees-Davies: Would the hon. Member not agree that very soon it would be possible to invent a new form of dominoes for a public house which could lead to excessive gaming but would still be one of the forms of dominoes?

Mr. Fletcher: I am prepared to believe that there is no limit to the inventive genius of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), but it is no use for him to try to pretend that he can start playing roulette or baccarat and call it dominoes. Everybody knows what dominoes is, whether it is defined or not. I cannot accept the argument that because we legalise the playing of dominoes, we must legalise the playing of anything else. The right

hon. Gentleman, I gather, thinks that if he legalises dominoes, he should legalise cribbage as well. I have no objection to cribbage being added, but I am sure that the line could properly be drawn at dominoes and cribbage, if desired. We must apply a great deal of common sense to this matter.
There is a distinction between the simple games that one wants to play in the bar of a public house, whether darts or dominoes, and the games that are played in bridge clubs, and so on. I urge upon the Home Secretary that it is desirable that people should be able to play simple, harmless games in a public house. One of the evils of the public house system in the past has been the tendency to excessive drinking, because there is nothing else to do there.
The right hon. Gentleman will find that those of us who are opposed to gaming in general and to providing further facilities for gaming are not opposed to allowing people to indulge in simple, harmless pastimes in a public house. That is all we are asking the Government to do in the Amendment, which has been supported by the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) and has received a good deal of general support on both sides. This is a simple issue and I hope that it will not be resisted on the technical and artificial lines put forward by the Joint Under-Secretary.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I believe that the desire of the whole House, including the Baptists, would be to find a way, if it could, of accepting what lies behind the spirit of the Amendment. I believe that the Home Secretary would like us to be able to play dominoes and certainly cribbage. I think that it is fair to say that in the West of England cribbage is entitled to hold its head up as high as dominoes is elsewhere. I thought that I detected a note from the glances of the Home Secretary during the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton)—I think that he gave the show away and that he agreed with every word of his speech —that he felt, as I do, that if we could find a way in which the traditional games of this country could be played in public houses, we ought to find that way.
The traditional games are, I suppose five in number. They are darts, a skilled game which we can now play and on


which, if one wants, one can have a bet; shove halfpenny on which we can now have a bet, although, of course, we must remember that the Bill has not yet become law and it is still illegal—what the Government are doing is to make it legal to have a bet on the dart board and the darts league will be happy about that —bar billiards, which is a skilled game, and two others, which are a mixture of skill and chance—dominoes and cribbage.
The problem—and it is a proper stinker—is how to get these made legal. One thing we cannot do. It is no good saying that it is technical and so on. It is nothing of the kind. We cannot just name a game. It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that dominoes is known to everyone. It just is not true. There is no limit to the variations which can be thought out by people who want to engage in certain forms of dominoes for high stakes. There are five by three, three by five and various others. I do not happen to play dominoes, I regret to say.
We cannot do this task by naming and calling the game dominoes, any more than we can call a game cribbage. I have racked my brains because I do not want to see the House made a fool of any more than any other hon. Member does. We shall all be made fools of, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Houghton-le-Spring rightly said, if we think that because we pass a law which retains the illegality of dominoes when the game of darts becomes legal, any of a licensee's customers or friends will not continue to play so much or take a corner at dominoes.
If the purpose of the Bill is first to liberalise, as I thought it was, and secondly to get respect for the law by having it properly defined so that the police have to enforce the gaming laws, I can imagine the trouble there will be when some of my old-age pensioner constituents get engaged in illegal dominoes on a Sunday morning.
There is only one way that I can think of that would get the Government out of this nasty difficulty. When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary started on this vast social reform he, more than anybody else, realised that

the field of social legislation is much more difficult to legislate about than any other sector, because we run against the consciences of people. I regret to say that my right hon. Friend and I have fallen out quite badly on the last Amendment. We are by no means sure that we may not find all the holiday camps in a difficulty, because I do not think that the Amendment was quite right. In that event, there could be trouble. So, likewise, dominoes and cribbage will undoubtedly go on.
I hope that hon. Members will be able to think out better ideas than the one I now put forward. I certainly put it forward with all humility. I do not say that it is very good. I suggest that at brewster sessions each year, when a publican comes forward for his licence for drink, he should be entitled to apply for a games licence and should state to the bench that what he requires is permission for the playing of dominoes and cribbage. If he then gets his games licence he will be licensed to play games to that extent on his premises.
There are one or two other ways in which it could be done. It could be done by merely saying that in the discretion of the licensing justices he can apply for a gaming licence. That, however, would permit the licensee to game more widely than we all intended. But for two reasons he would not do so. The first is that if he allowed other than just dominoes and so on, the following year he would lose his licence. The second is that the licensed victuallers of this country are as fine a body of men as one could wish and thoroughly respectable. In any case, they do not want to allow gaming on their premises. It conduces to the lagging on drinks if people get down to too many games.
6.45 p.m.
I have come straight back from the licensed victuallers conference at Margate where I propounded this idea because I wanted to see what the conference felt about it. I found that it had no objection to it whatsoever. The licensed victuallers feel that it is very important that the traditional games of cribbage and dominoes should continue. They do not want gaming on their premises generally. They are opposed to it, one and all. They want both these games and, of course, they support the


hon. Lady's Amendment, but then they are not expected to know about the drafting of the law and matters of that kind.
It seems to me that it could be properly done. I would invite my right hon. Friend to think whether we cannot in another place bring forward an Amendment, to come back here, in which a publican could apply for a licence for gaming. He would say straight away to the licensing justices, "All I really want to do is to play dominoes and cribbage." The police would say that they had no objection. He would get his licence. If the following year it was found that there had been a breach of it by the playing of chemin de jer or pontoon or poker and that he had turned his premises into a gaming house, he would lose his licence. Is my right hon. Friend willing to stake that the licensed victuallers will play the game with him? I believe that they will play the game with him absolutely. If they do not and one or two go wrong, they will lose their licences the following year.
I believe that in this way, without harm or prejudice to the Bill, we may be able to achieve what we want to do, which is to permit the traditional games of chance and skill combined and to enable them to be played, including dominoes. What is frankly quite impossible is to define particular games. Anyone who has ever tried, including the members of the Royal Commission, and Mr. Gilbert Beyfus, who gave evidence on it, have subsequently all said categorically that one cannot possibly begin to try to define a particular game—there are so many myriads of them. It is not from lack of desire to do this on my right hon. Friend's part or that of anyone else that we oppose the Amendment. We must oppose the Amendment, although I have complete sympathy with it, because it is quite impossible to write it in otherwise than in relation to dominoes, and if we have to include cribbage we shall not know where we shall end up.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will try to think of some way in which these traditional games can be included. I have suggested only one way. There may be many others. In one way or another, I hope that when we conclude with this Bill we shall have been able to

maintain the major things in the public house—the skilled games for a bet; the traditional games also for a bet; a room set apart for these purposes so that a club or association can meet.
Under the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act, 1956, I do not believe that these games can effectively be dealt with. Under Section 4 of that Act no player can pay more than 5s. The whole of the proceeds must be applied to purposes other than private gain and the total of prizes must not exceed a certain amount.
It is a little involved. I think the result will be, if this proposal is dropped and nothing can be found to replace it, that the next thing that will happen will be that somebody will bring in an amending Bill to amend the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act. I would certainly do so, but I have not looked at it in that way. I think that my right hon. Friend might consider the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act itself and see whether he can amend the conditions of that Act to enable him to achieve what he wants to achieve here and then incorporate it in the Bill.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): Or amend the Licensing Act.

Mr. Rees-Davies: But under Section 41 of that Act it is completely and absolutely prohibited. It is true that next year there will be another opportunity with the repeal of the Licensing Act, but there will be such a ballyhoo about dominoes that I am inclined to think that the Home Secretary will have to give a general instruction not to prosecute in the Metropolitan area. Then we shall be back to the one thing we want to avoid and that is chief constables having to decide on the ground of their own consciences.
This is a difficult subject. I am not critical of anybody about it and it does not behove anybody to be critical of another colleague if he cannot offer a practical solution. But, having regard to the high reputation of the licensed trade and to the views of the brewers about future licensing laws, I submit that they can be trusted not to indulge in general gaming if a licence could be produced which could be applied for at the brewster sessions.

Mr. Paget: I have great difficulty in understanding the logic of the hon. Member's argument. Why do the words "dominoes" and "cribbage" become comprehensible and workable if they are in a licence but not if they are put in a Bill?

Mr. Rees-Davies: I did not suggest that they should be put in the licence at all.

Mr. Paget: We are dealing here with licensed premises. If, under the excuse that it is dominoes or cribbage, really serious gambling is taking place in a public house then, whether it be strictly within the law or not, the licence will be in peril next time. The licence is at the discretion of the licensing justices. If they find that either by twisting the law or otherwise the premises are being misconducted the licence is in peril, and that is exactly the same position as would be the case if a gaming licence were issued. If too much gaming were allowed under a gaming licence, the licence would be imperilled. So is the drinking licence if the public house is used in a manner which is objectionable, whether or no dominoes or cribbage are are used for that purpose.
It seems to me that the courts and magistrates have been given much more difficult tasks than to use their common sense and say whether what was going on was a game of dominoes or cribbage or was something else. Magistrates in their common sense will tackle that problem without any great difficulty. They have tackled much worse. One can, of course, use dominoes or cribbage on which to bet high. One can use the course taken by flies across the ceiling to bet high. One can take a drop of water on a windowpane to bet high. There is nothing on earth that one cannot bet on high, including darts. One could draw a number and bet on which dart went nearest to it, thus producing a mere game of chance. One can bet on anything.
If the intention of the Bill—and I hope that we do insert the words "dominoes" and "cribbage"—is twisted, the licence is in peril. The magistrates will not like it and will say, "That is not the way to conduct a public house." Let us insert the words at their simplest and the licensing authority will know how to work the Bill.

Mr. R. A. Butler: This is a complicated matter and must be seen against the background of the experiences we all have of constituents and friends playing these games in our local "pubs" and perhaps of sometimes indulging in them ourselves. It must be approached in an un-priggish spirit and we must try to imagine how the Statute can be drawn in the most satisfactory way. The situation has been described by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary and there is no doubt that the difficulties which he mentioned are very much in existence.
I think that the Amendment is impossible to accept because it singles out a game by name and would refer in its drafting to a public place. It is not absolutely consistent with the crystal-clear declaration by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) in referring to playing in a public house. If we are to look at it, I would prefer to look at it from the angle of the public house, which has been mentioned by various speakers including my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). If that be the case we would certainly have to look at this again and in looking at it I must draw attention to some of the difficulties.
The Bill really hinges—if we really want one hinge—on the interpretation Clause—Clause 26—and its definition of a game of chance. That is the hinge which keeps the Bill together and therefore we must be very careful about upsetting it. Already its effect is that in the bar of a licensed premises, under the Bill as it will emerge and go to another place without further Amendment, it would be possible to play three of the games to which my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet referred, namely darts, shove-ha'penny and bar billiards. They are games of skill and therefore, as he says, can be indulged in, under the definition and under the Bill as a whole, in a bar. My hon. Friend mentioned five games altogether but we are left with six homely games. They include dominoes, cribbage and poker dice. My hon. Friend was most remiss in omitting poker dice. The whole attention of this majestic Chamber should be directed to that game as well as to the other five to which he drew attention.
If we are to make an exception, is it to be done by naming the game, by the


brewster sessions, by amending the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act, or by amending the reference in Clause 24 to one of the master Acts—the Licensing Act, 1953? Which is it to be? I cannot give a final answer today. It has been difficult so far to find a solution.
Looking at these proposed solutions one by one, I am inclined to say to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that it will be exceedingly difficult for the brewster sessions magistrates to have this invidious task added to their already invidious and heavy duties. In some of our cities the brewster sessions last a week and more. I will undertake that that should be looked at. However, I see great difficulties. As my right hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State said, it is already possible under the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act to play a form of dominoes, or to play in a room behind. It may be possible to approach this from that angle. I shall not discuss the licensing Acts, but I had better look at this to see whether any individual exception can be made for any individual game.
7.0 p.m.
Here I come up against the next problem, that of the difference between dominoes, cribbage and poker dice and the other games. It would seem very difficult to introduce any particular mention of cribbage, or any particular concession, because here we reach the great realm of card games. If we do that, after all the discussion we have had on gaming in the course of this Bill, we shall be even in greater difficulty than before. Similarly, poker dice, though an innocuous game, has a particularly venomous title. Cribbage may well be a homely occupation of Jane Austen or a Mrs. Gaskell pastime amongst our rural population, and it may emerge as a possible exception in the ravages of the Annual Price Review.
I do not want to come to any conclusion this evening. I did not come to the Chamber minded to make any concession, because I have been so carefully and legally trained by my advisers, and was advised by my right hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State. But with his concurrence—and his knowledge of the Bill is well known—we had better look at the four possibilities that have been raised and see if we can find

a solution. In that case the position of the House is reserved. If an Amendment is made in another place, it will be brought back here.
I cannot give an undertaking. If hon. Members want to push this, then they must push it to a conclusion. If I can find a solution, then in another place we shall attempt to introduce a modification, but it would be limited to public houses and the difficulties to which I have drawn attention must be borne in mind.

Miss Bacon: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that statement. Putting down this Amendment has been worth while. It seems to be the general intention of the House as a whole that something should be done to legalise the existing practice in public houses. As far as I am concerned, if it is confined to public houses, that would suit me very well; it was just that we had to find a place in the Bill where we could put the Amendment. If, as I am sure he does, the Home Secretary realises that this ought to be done, then some way will be found in which it will be done, and when the Bill comes back from another place we shall find some appropriate Amendment. In view of the Home Secretary's obvious desire to make a concession on this, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 21.—(PROVISION OF AMUSEMENTS WITH PRIZES AT CERTAIN NONCOMMERCIAL ENTERTAINMENTS.)

Mr. N. Macpherson: I beg to move, in page 16, line 6, to leave out from "applies" to the end of line 10 and to insert:
 of amusements with prizes; and in subsection (3) of the said section twenty-three (which defines the entertainments to which that section applies as bazaars, sales of work, fetes and other entertainments of a similar character, whether limited to one day or extending over two or more days) after the word ' fetes ' there shall be inserted the words ' dinners, dances, sporting or athletic events ' ".
This is a drafting Amendment. On the Committee stage my right hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State accepted an Amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr.Mathew)to include in Section 23 (3) of the Betting and Lotteries Act, which deals with the entertainments as an incident to which lotteries may be permitted, the words


"dinner or dance". My right hon. Friend said at the time that he was not certain, in accepting the Amendment, whether these words were appropriate. This Amendment includes the words "sporting or athletic events". As my right hon. Friend said, at sporting and athletic events, as well as noncommercial dinners and dances, it is not unusual to have an amusement with prizes. I hope that this will satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton, for it is an improvement.

Mr. Robert Mathew: The points I put in Committee are fully met in this Amendment and I am most grateful.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23.—(AMUSEMENT MACHINES.)

Mr. Rees-Davies: I beg to move, in page 18, line 18, to leave out from "machine" to "of" in line 19 and to insert:
 which—

(a) is made playable by the insertion of a coin or coins into the machine; and
(b) is played in accordance either with the condition set out in subsection (2) or with the alternative conditions set out in subsection (3) ".

Mr. Speaker: It may be convenient to discuss with this Amendment the two following Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), in line 20, leave out from first "The" to end of line 24 and insert:
first of the conditions referred to in paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection is that".
and in line 32, at end insert:
(3) The alternative conditions referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section are—

(a) that the amount required to be inserted into the machine in order to play the game once does not exceed threepence; and
(b) that no prize is distributed or offered which is a money prize or which exceeds five shillings in value.

Mr. Rees-Davies: That would be convenient, Mr. Speaker.
These Amendments look complicated. They have been completely drafted, but not by me. The essence of them is that there is in the bars of present public houses, in coffee bars and in clubs in various parts of the country, a number

of small, innocuous machines of this nature. There is the machine in which one puts a penny and the penny comes back. That is covered in another Clause of the Bill. There is also the machine in which one may play up to 3d. and at the end one may get not a money prize but perhaps a packet of Players or something of that kind.
A number of these small machines do not always go into the amusement parks, and these are the machines which will be limited by the conditions. This Clause is the one which deals with the amusement machines of a completely innocuous nature. Under earlier Clauses there are machines by which there is more gaming and which are permitted for amusement parks where there is a licence. These are machines permitted anywhere and everywhere under Clause 23. At present, Clause 23 says:
Nothing in sections sixteen to eighteen of this Act or in section twenty-one or twenty-two of the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934, shall apply to a game played by means of a machine in accordance with the conditions set out in subsection (2) of this section.
As these conditions stand at the moment, a person may put a penny in a machine and get it back, as in the case of a football game, when he plays against an opponent and gets the coin back if he wins.
My Amendments are designed to enable people to use machines which are spring-loaded and which operate lights which illuminate various numbers —20,000, 30,000 and 40,000—and where, if a certain number is obtained, the money inserted is returned and a prize of a shilling or sixpence may be obtained from the bar. The Amendment will expand the use of some of these machines, which are made in this country.

Mr. Vosper: As my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) says, the Clause relates to gaming machines which are innocuous. Other gaming machines are dealt with by other Clauses and are restricted either to clubs or amusement arcades. There is no restriction upon the use of machines defined in this Clause. The Bill defines an innocuous machine as one which gives the player his money back, or gives him the right to have a second go. My hon. Friend wants to add a third definition; he wants to


include machines which for a contribution of not more than threepence may entitle the person using the machine to a prize not exceeding 5s. in value.
I do not like the Amendments. I believe that in them we are getting beyond the realm of the innocuous machine and into the realm of the gaming machine. There is a difference between the two, and on this point I should be grateful for an expression of opinion by other hon. Members. One point which must be borne in mind is that it is difficult to define:
a … prize … which exceeds five shillings in value 
There would be some difficulty in enforcing that provision, and that, in itself, would render the Amendment open to abuse. The House would be advised to limit these innocuous machines, which may be placed anywhere, to those covered by the simple provisions contained in the existing Clause, and not extend the definition in the direction of the Amendments.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Would my right hon. Friend find the Amendments more acceptable if the money prize limit were lowered, or the amount of money inserted were limited to 1d. or 2d.? I have no great personal knowledge of this matter but, as my right hon. Friend knows, the trade is interested in it, and has asked that the matter should be discussed. It has made representations to the Home Secretary.

Mr. Vosper: My hon. Friend is quite correct; representations were made by a section of the trade. But I am advised that the trade is divided on this issue, and that some sections fear that the abuse to which I referred earlier may arise. I am also advised that although these machines are not numerous at present, if the Amendments were accepted they might become so, and we do not want to encourage that. In those circumstances I must advise the House to reject the Amendment, although I am prepared to consider the further point made by my hon. Friend in the light of any further recommendations that might be made by other hon. Members.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 24.—(PLAYING OF GAMES ON CERTAIN PREMISES.)

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Eric Johnson: I beg to move, in page 18, line 45, at end to insert:
In subsection (1) of section one hundred and forty-one of the Licensing Act, 1953, after the word "licence" insert the word "knowingly" and in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Forms of Certificate for hotel and public house respectively in the Second Schedule to the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1959, after the word "not" insert the word " knowingly ",
Part of the Amendment refers to Scotland, and if my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will deal with that part. So far as it affects Section 141 of the Licensing Act, 1953, it would mean that that Section would read:
If the holder of a justices' licence knowingly suffers any gaming or unlawful game to be carried on in his premises he shall be liable on a first conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds 
and so on. The Amendment would ensure that the burden of proving knowledge is placed firmly upon the prosecution. I am aware that the words "knowingly" and "suffers" have a very long and complicated legal history, and if my hon. Friend for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, I hope that he will deal with that aspect of the Amendment.
I would merely ask my hon. Friend and the House to accept the Amendment on a fair and normal interpretation of the English language. As the Bill stands, the magistrates may take the view that once gaming has been shown to have taken place it is up to the licensee to prove that he had no knowledge of it. I should like to illustrate the point by an example. A case occurred in which a licensee was personally in charge of the premises and was serving in the saloon bar while his barman served in the public bar. Evidence was given that the barman could have seen a betting slip being passed, and on that evidence the licensee was convicted. That seems absolutely wrong. If the word "knowingly" had been inserted in the Licensing Act, and if the word means what I have always supposed it to mean, the landlord could not have been convicted.
It might be held that if a licensee suffers gaming to go on while he is in charge of the premises he is liable, but


if the word "knowingly" is included the position will be clarified and the law will be very much fairer to the licensee.

Sir J. Duncan: I rise only to say a few words from the Scottish angle, since Scotland is included in the Amendment and Scottish licensees are rather interested in the matter. We have already passed Clauses which allow gaming of any lawful kind to be played in the back room of a public house. If the licensee is in the bar, and the back room of the public house, from which there cannot be access to the bar, is being used, it will be very difficult for the licensee to know what exactly is going on. It seems to me, therefore, that it is only reasonable that he should have some let-out if he does not know what is going on. It may well be that some local club had taken the back room for the evening to play "housey-housey". It can be extremely difficult for a licensee, serving drinks in the ordinary way in the bar, to keep an eye entirely on what is going on in the back room. If there is a row, he will be expected to hear it and deal with it, but it will be very difficult for him to do what he is expected to do under the present provision.
The Second Schedule to the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1959, provides a form of certificate which the licensee is given, and in paragraph 9 of that Schedule it is stated:
the certificate-holder shall not knowingly permit any breach of the peace, drunkenness or riotous or disorderly conduct in the premises …".
The word "knowingly" is there already. Paragraph 10 states:
The certificate holder shall not knowingly permit men or women of notoriously bad fame or girls or boys to assemble in the premises …".
Again, the word "knowingly" is included. Paragraph 11, which is the one we wish to amend, states:
the certificate-holder shall not permit any unlawful games in the premises …
The object of the Amendment is to make paragraph 11 read:
the certificate-holder shall not knowingly permit any unlawful games in the premises;
That is all we want, and, in view of the alterations in the Bill and the liberalisation of the playing of any lawful games in the back rooms of public houses

today, it seems reasonable to amend the Schedule in order to help the licensee in these circumstances.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Small as this alteration is, it is an important one, and I should like to say at the outset that this is a highly technical Amendment. I must ask the indulgence of lawyers on both sides of the House if I try to tackle it, because I wish to try to deal with it in broad terms. I am slightly consoled by the fact that the Amendment was moved and seconded by my hon. Friends the Members for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) and South Angus (Sir J. Duncan), neither of whom is a lawyer.

Sir J. Duncan: Thank God.

Mr. Macpherson: I must tell my hon. Friends right away that the Government cannot accept the Amendment, and I shall try to show why. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley—

Mr. E. Johnson: Would my hon. Friend mind pronouncing it "Blakeley"?

Mr. Macpherson: I stand corrected, and I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley. My hon. Friend addressed himself to the burden of proving knowledge, and said that in his view it should be firmly placed upon the prosecution. He said that it should be open to the licensee to prove that he had no knowledge. Of course, it could be argued that the licensee cannot be expected to know everything that takes place on his premises, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus argued that it was even more difficult for him to know what was going on in a back room. Both my hon. Friends put the Amendment in its setting, and I need not cover the point again. They certainly stated the effect of the Amendment quite correctly.
I am informed that there is a judgment of Lord President Cooper in the case Simpson v. Gifford, in which he said:
The whole theory of the Licensing Act is that trade in liquor is permitted to be carried on provided always that certain conditions are complied with.
In other words, the law, or the licensing court, holds the licensee responsible for seeing to the best of his ability that certain things are done or are not done, as the case may be. For the licensee to


escape responsibility, therefore, it should not be enough for him merely not to know that gaming is taking place on his premises.
Of course, the licensee cannot ensure at all times that any manager or servants do what he tells them. It has long been held in the English courts and in Scotland—there is a well-known case on this —that if the servant or manager is in control of the premises or part of the premises, and the servant or manager knew that an offence was being committed, or ought to have known, then the licensee it liable. It is only if the servant was not acting within the scope of his employment that the master can escape liability.
Again, a licensee or his servants might deliberately avoid knowing or trying to find out, and that would be tantamount to connivance—what a great English judge described as "purposely abstaining from ascertaining". In legal terms, from what little I know of the law, knowledge may be either actual or constructive knowledge. I am advised that what this Amendment would do would be somewhat to undermine the doctrine of constructive knowledge. What this amounts to is that a licensee is liable if either he knows of the gaming, or he knows that gaming is likely to take place and takes care not to know whether in fact it takes place. If the word "knowingly" were inserted, as is suggested by the Amendment, he would not be liable in the latter case.
It is no answer to plead hardship and to say that it is unduly hard to make the licensee responsible for the acts of omission of others. That is his job, and the conditions on which he gets his licence, and this condition is written into the Licensing Act. There is no change in this, and therefore there is no reason to make a change in the conditions which he has to fulfil. If anything, this Bill is relaxing the responsibilities that are laid upon the licensee because of the relaxation which it makes about games that may be played on licensed premises. On the other hand, the word "suffers" has been construed, I am told, by the English courts in a long series of cases, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley said, and the word "permits" has been similarly construed in Scotland. It has

been held that " suffering "or "permitting" gaming to be carried on implies some degree of knowledge. The knowledge may be actual or constructive; in effect, the licensee knew, or should have known, or those who were running the place for him knew or should have known.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus drew attention to the fact that there were two other conditions which did include the word "knowingly", but 1 would draw his attention to the fact that these conditions are quite different in character. I would assume myself that a breach of the peace might arise suddenly in a manner in which the certificate-holder in Scotland could not have prior knowledge and could not prevent the breach of the peace. As to whether a licensee knows when a constable is not a constable and when women of notoriously bad fame are on his premises, that again is something on which it is quite logical to say that he must not permit them, knowing them to be there.
When we come to permitting any unlawful gaming on the premises, this is a duty which he is expected by the licensing court to fulfil, and it is up to him to take such measures so to ensure it. After all, games are continuing things, and not just chance events, and he should take such measures as he can by proper organisation to ensure that such activities do not take place on his premises.
7.30 p.m.
Although my hon. Friend did not argue it, it could be argued that "knowingly" would not add very much to the content of the word "suffered". but, on the other hand, the courts would be bound to conclude, if this word were inserted and in a different Bill altogether and in a different form of legislation, that Parliament intended some fairly radical change, and they would be bound to ask what the change was. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley said that the change should be that the burden of proving knowledge should be placed on the prosecution, but that is an extraordinarily difficult burden to discharge. I cannot refrain from the conclusion that the Amendment would encourage licensees to turn at least one blind eye to gaming in the bar and would make it impossible


for them to be held responsible for such breaches on their premises, so I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Ede: I welcome the decision announced by the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. I am certain that if these words were included the amount of difficulty which they would create in the justices' room after the justices had heard a case would be very great. After all, the granting of a licence is a matter of considerable value to the person who gets it. He has to prove before a court that he is a person of good character and is likely to be able to control the premises in respect of which he is given a licence.
Publicans are getting a great deal out of the Bill. Considerable concessions were made to them in Committee. I do not know whether they think that they are now merely forcing an open door, but I am very glad to find that there is some point beyond which the Government are not prepared to go in making concessions which add to the difficulties of getting the ordinary law enforced.
Before some lawyer butts into a laymen's argument and confuses the issue so that none of us knows what is right or wrong, I would say how heartily I support the hon. Member and how much I congratulate him upon stating a case to us before the lawyers have made it completely incapable of being understood.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 18, line 45 at the end to insert:
(2) So much of Section thirteen of the Gaming Act, 1845, as prevents a billiard room on premises licensed under the Licensing Act, 1953, from being used for other games or purposes during times when the playing therein of billiards, bagatelle and similar games is prohibited that is to say, the words "and every billiard room in every house specified in any victualler's licence", shall cease to have effect.
In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), in whose name the Amendment was put down, I think I can say that this is a very simple Amendment which needs no explanation from me. I hope that it will be accepted by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Vosper: Perhaps the House had better know what the Amendment is

about. The Gaming Act, 1845, some, but not all, of which is being repealed by the Bill, prohibits the playing of billiards on Sunday. As a second part of that provision, it also prohibits the use or opening of billiards rooms on Sunday.
The Amendment permits a billiard room to be opened on Sunday for another purpose. I do not believe that those who are advocates of strict Sunday observance will think that to make use of a room which is otherwise useless on Sunday is a great breach of the law, and I advise the House to accept the Amendment.

Mr. N. Macpherson: The Amendment does not apply to Scotland for the very good reason that public houses in Scotland are not open on Sundays, although hotels are. In any case, in Scotland there can be a billiards room in licensed premises and it does not need to be separately licensed.

Mr. Rees-Davies: In the absence of the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), I add my support and I am delighted with what my right hon. Friend has said about it. Does the Amendment apply to Wales? Although there are no other Welshmen present— and they should be here on this great day—I am sorry that I did not notice the hon. Member for Manchester, Open-shaw (Mr. W. R. Williams), who is a Welshman, although he does not represent a Welsh constituency, and neither do I—it is a great day for Wales when one is to be allowed to play billiards on a Sunday. Secondly, will the Amendment cover hotels in Wales? I remember very well that it was impossible to play billiards in Wales on a Sunday and there are literally hundreds of thousands of Welshmen throughout the country who will be strongly in support of being able to play billiards, or bagatelle, on a Sunday.

Mr. W. R. Williams: I had not intended to intervene, but I cannot allow the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) to speak on behalf of all Welsh people, because I think that his knowledge of Wales is now limited and it would be very presumptuous of him to claim to speak for Wales. I try to keep in contact with the Principality, and I should be very surprised if the bulk of


opinion in Wales were in favour of the Amendment. I, too, would like to know whether the Amendment applies to Wales as well as to England.

Mr. Vosper: I do not see how the Amendment can apply to Wales for the very good reason given by my hon. Friend in respect of Scotland, namely, that public houses in Wales are not open on Sundays. The Amendment applies only to public houses which are open and where the licensee wants an additional room because his premises are crowded. He will now have the billiards room available. I shall not commit myself to the hopes for Wales expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). The Amendment cannot apply to Wales because public houses there are not open on Sundays.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 29. —(SHORT TITLE, EXTENT AND COMMENCEMENT.)

Mr. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 23, line 27, at the end to insert:
not being earlier than the first day of March nineteen hundred and sixty-one".
I hope that by this Amendment we shall afford the Government an opportunity of being rather more forthcoming about their intentions for the timetable for bringing the Bill into operation.
We can now assume that the Bill is likely to pass into law in this Session. That does not mean anything about the time at which it will come into operation, because that depends upon the day to be appointed for that purpose. It is not as simple as that, because Clause 26 (1) says that the appointed day may be different days for England and Scotland and for different purposes of the Bill. Indeed, in Committee it was suggested that Statutory Instruments might be made to bring the Bill into operation on different days in different places for different purposes. Something was said about this during the discussion on an earlier Amendment, but not very much. It was conceded by the Government, by the acceptance of an earlier Amendment, that at any rate there would be an interval of six months between the time when the Bill comes into operation generally and the time at which increased penalties for street betting begin to operate.
I think that now the House should consider the general timetable for bringing the provisions of the Bill into operation. My Amendment suggests in terms that it should not be before 1st March, 1961. In deciding when the Bill should begin to operate there are various considerations which should be taken into account by the Government. I will mention first the point which has been stressed on more than one occasion by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who said it would be incongruous were the Bill to be brought into operation at certain times of the year. He said it was essential that it should be brought in before the spring.

Mr. Wigg: Before the beginning of the "flat".

Mr. Fletcher: Yes, before the beginning of the flat-racing season. It is, therefore, on his advice that I suggest the date of 1st March, 1961. Of course, it could be that 1st March, 1962, would be a better date. It may be that the hon. Member for Dudley is right and that if one leaves the date beyond 1st March in any year one should wait until the corresponding date in the subsequent year.
The second consideration which the Government must take into account is the problem which will confront the betting industry when this Bill becomes law. Obviously sufficient time must be provided to enable the machinery to operate. The position in Scotland is different from that which obtains in England. In Scotland betting offices have been in existence, although illegally, for a considerable time, and one may assume that a great many of them will be licensed under the provisions in the Bill. In England, and particularly in the south of England, the position is totally different. In the south of England we have not been accustomed to betting offices, and a great many of my hon. Friends are not particularly enamoured of the idea of betting offices. That method of betting is contrary to the methods which have been adopted in the south of England. Therefore, when the Bill becomes law, bookmakers will be faced with a very serious problem. They will have to find appropriate buildings from which to operate and there will have to be, I suppose, several thousands or tens of thousands of pounds invested. In an earlier discussion


one of my hon. Friends assumed that there would be something like £100 million invested.

Mr. Rees-Davies: What?

Mr. Fletcher: One of my hon. Friends suggested £100 million, rather more than the amount spent on Blue Streak. I have not attempted to make an estimate but it was said over and over again during the Committee stage that if we are to have betting offices to serve the community and to replace the existing method of street betting, we shall have to have a great many offices and they will not have to be too far distant. We were told of the number of betting offices in York. I forget the number—

Mr. McAdden: It is forty.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Fletcher: If forty offices are required in York and if we compare the population of London with that of York, we shall find that several thousands of offices will be needed in London alone, and, therefore, there will be a property problem. It is very desirable that there should be abundant time given to enable the licensed bookmakers to obtain appropriate property. They should not be subject to extortion by being under some unreasonable time limit to comply with the provisions of the Bill.
The third point which will require consideration when fixing the appointed day is the relevance of the recommendations of the Peppiatt Committee. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to take this opportunity to tell us how he now envisages the timetable of the Peppiatt Committee in connection with the proposals in the Bill. The House will realise that the recommendations of that Committee could not be implemented at all without some system of licensing. It would have been impossible for the Peppiatt Committee recommendations to be carried out unless Parliament was prepared to adopt the licensing system envisaged in the Bill or some similar system.
I suppose that some small bookmakers, when considering whether to apply for a licence, may be influenced by the intentions of the Government

regarding the recommendations of the Peppiatt Committee. I think that everyone would like to know whether the Government accept in principle the amount suggested by the Peppiatt Committee—between £1 million and £1,500,000—as being a reasonable amount to be obtained by way of a compulsory levy on bookmakers. Therefore, I hope we shall hear whether the Government now contemplate that the recommendations of the Peppiatt Committee will be carried into effect.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member but it appears to me that the debate is going further than the confines of the Amendment which he is moving.

Mr. Fletcher: I am most anxious not to go further than the Amendment I am moving, which is to the effect that the Bill should not come into operation before 1st March, 1961. I mentioned the Peppiatt Committee's Report only because we learnt from the right hon. Gentleman on 3rd May that legislation is contemplated next Session. It may be that the Government hope that the legislation will be passed into law at a relatively early date. Of course, it may also be the case that it will not, and if it is intended to delay any legislative provisions based on the Peppiatt Committee's Report, it may well be that 1st March, 1961, would not be an appropriate date, and that the date should be later. I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept this Amendment and also that we shall be told something about their general intentions regarding a timetable.

Mr. Wigg: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) for moving this Amendment because it gives those of us whose interest in this Bill is sustained to the last an opportunity of saying to the Government that they could obtain the maximum amount of good will by giving as much notice as possible to those involved regarding their intentions.
I do not go so far as my hon. Friend in asking the Minister to give us a timetable or to comment on the timetable mentioned in the Appendix to the Peppiatt Committee's Report. That seems to me to be asking too much. Needless


to say, I wish to keep in order in what I have to say, but I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) on his good fortune in the Ballot for Private Members' Motions. It will enable us to have a reasonable debate on the Peppiatt Committee's Report and give the Government an opportunity of hearing the views of the House.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman or his right hon. Friend will then give the House the benefit of their advice on the Peppiatt Committee's timetable. With due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East, I do not think that is relevant to the point we are discussing, but it was established in Committee that there are to be many appointed days. The appointed day mentioned in Clause 29 is only the first of many. It would be as well if operation of the Bill were introduced in a leap year because there is an extra day then and it looks as if the Government will need extra days.

Mr. Ede: Perhaps that would detract from the advantage.

Mr. Wigg: That may be so. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East carries me with him on the point he made about the appointed day not being earlier than 1st March, 1961, and in saying that it might well be later. Although I want the appointed day to be announced as soon as possible, I do not want precipitate haste. I want even the Scots to put their house in order and all the interests, including the police forces, to have ample opportunity of seeing what is coming and preparing themselves accordingly.
When you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, rose to remind my hon. Friend that he was getting out of order, I thought for a moment that you were going to forget the honourable position you occupy and comment on the fact that, although my hon. Friend was anxious to have a starting date just before the start of the flat-racing season, you might regard as a calamity a date near the middle of the jumping season. My hon. Friend in making his decision has opted for a date just before the flat-racing season. That kind of timing is very important, and it is one of the reasons why I have detained the House for a few minutes on this subject.
We cannot expect very busy men engaged in a great Department of State like the Home Office to be aware how ordinary mortals like myself concern ourselves in our spare time. Without taking the issues involved into account, they might opt for Midsummer Day and that might come in the middle of Ascot Week. The Home Secretary might be quite unaware that 21st June came on the day when the Gold Cup was being run. All sorts of consequences could flow from that. I urge the right hon. Gentleman, before he makes up his mind about the appointed day—if I may change my metaphor from racing to cricket—to look all round the wicket and to take what consultations are open to him. Then he should give all the interests concerned—bookmakers, police and everybody—the fullest opportunity to prepare themselves.
This is a simple thing to ask. If this is done, I am reasonably confident that the right hon. Gentleman may avoid some difficulties, such as having the starting date on Gold Cup day or, even worse, on Derby day.

Mr. Ede: I have all along felt that the bringing into force of this Measure would be an operation far bigger than anything the Home Office has undertaken for a great many years. When justices first began concerning themselves with publicans' licences there must have been a somewhat similar period, although I think they came into that very gradually. What faces us now is that all the illegal betting, it is hoped, will be brought within the ambit of the law or will be suppressed.
I accept the decision of the House as it has been given that betting shops, which involve licensing, and factory runners, who involve registration, will be legalised, and, presumably, that will come into effect on a particular appointed day. I am quite certain that there will be enough knowledge in the Home Office among those in some of the subordinate positions for any stupid thing like arranging for this to start on Derby day or Gold Cup day to be avoided. I do not share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) of the remoteness of the Home Secretary from mundane affairs of this sort, for, no matter how he poses in this House, he has pretty considerable knowledge of this


matter. In fact, I have seen him at Epsom on Derby Day on an occasion when the Cabinet had some knowledge it did not share with hon. Members of the Opposition.
This is going to be a very big job. Of course, it must be carried through reasonably quickly. Otherwise, after the revelations which have been made in the course of Committee and Report stages, the police will have to pursue prosecutions against illegal betting which is now taking place. The right hon. Gentleman assured me in Committee that they were going on with this and, whether it concerned the betting shop or the street bookmaker, the law would be enforced. Having reached a decision in regard to the law, it is to be hoped that the period of the interregnum will be as short as possible.
I accept the decision, adopted by the Government, that the betting shop is to be the only legal form of cash betting. I may grieve over it, but I have to accept it, and, as a good citizen, I do not want to put anything in the way of the Government getting on with the job, but questions of town planning are involved. There are certainly some areas where bookmakers will desire to have premises which have been zoned in such a way as to preclude the opening and conduct of betting offices.
We discussed that matter several times in Committee. I do not think we reached any very satisfactory conclusion about it. There may be some parts of towns and cities, and even of villages, where, owing to the present zoning, no hindrance in this respect may occur, but there are certainly large parts of provincial cities and of London where I should have thought the present town planning restrictions would preclude the opening of a betting shop. If there is to be a great restriction of choice in this matter, many bookmakers will be unable to get premises at a rent which will enable them to conduct their business.
Several times in Committee it was suggested that already offices were being obtained by some people, and others had already been rather frightened by the rents that were being asked. Until the betting offices are established legally and are in working operation, the increased penalties against street bookmakers, we are told, will not be brought into force.

I think Clause 6, as amended, is so worded as to enable that Clause to be brought in separately. We were told in Committee that this would not be done until there was no excuse for going to a street bookmaker because betting shops would be reasonably available for the population of the area in which a street bookmaker might desire to operate.
8.0 p.m.
I do not know what estimate the Government have made of the time which will be required to carry through the processes which I have mentioned, but there will have to be meetings of the licensing committees, although they are given very little guidance in the Bill about the number of betting shops which may be required in any given area. The process of getting the licensing committees to work, granting the licences and considering the appropriate local conditions to attach to them when they are issued will also take some time. I notice that the Government have tried to economise in some Amendments to the First Schedule whereby the licensing committee will be able to divide itself in order to get on with the business by sub-committees.
I regard the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) of a date not later than 1st March, 1961, as allowing so large a margin for error that it is not a feasible date. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that he can get the machine at work, not to be able to bring in Clause 6 but to get the betting shops established under licence, before some date in 1963? I think that that is a far more realistic date, and I may be taken as opposing my hon. Friend's Amendment that the date should be 1st March, 1961, because I think that to accept that date would be to create illusions in the public mind. I think that the right hon. Gentleman should give the House and the public an indication tonight of the timetable which he thinks it will be possible to observe when the Bill becomes law.

Mr. Vosper: I think that I can meet the wishes of the House in this respect. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) said that he thought that the House was likely to approve the Bill in approximately its present form. The Bill has yet to be sent to another place,


but as soon as we know its likely fate there, it is our intention to enter into discussions with the interested bodies about the timetable. That meets the point made by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). Those bodies would be the representatives of bookmakers, the Racecourse Betting Control Board, those responsible for the amusement trade and anybody else who is particularly interested.

Mr. Ede: And the licensing justices?

Mr. Vosper: That is correct; I will add them to the list.
Anything I say today is purely provisional as a guide to the House and possibly to those bodies when we have these discussions. I have previously said that it is possible to implement the Parts of the Bill on different dates. I said that there would be no delay in implementing Parts II and III—the Gaming and the Amusements with Prizes Parts of the Bill—and they will be brought into operation as soon as possible; and I envisage that they will come into effect some time in October or November of this year. The only delay is the issue of permits for amusement arcades.
The House is particularly interested in the betting Part of the Bill. The first stage is the establishment of licensing committees of justices, and we envisage, although this is subject to discussion, that these should be appointed in October of this year. That will be the next date in the timetable. The following date of importance to the House is that under the First Schedule by which the first applications have to be made to the licensing justices for permits or for licences for offices. We envisage that that date might be the date which the hon. Member for Islington, East mentioned in his Amendment—1st March, 1961. That will be the date by which applications have to be in.
It is then envisaged that through the months of March and April those applications will be considered and that 1st May, 1961, might be the date on which Clause 2 and Clause 4 of the Bill come into effect. Clause 2 deals with the date by which all bookmakers will have to have their permits, and Clause 4 the date on which betting offices will become legal. The date envisaged for those two operations could therefore well be 2nd

May, 1961, two months after all applications have to be in before the licensing justices.
No one envisages that every application will have been dealt with and every licenced office established by that time, but on 1st May, if this programme is followed, bookmakers would have to have their permits and licensed betting offices would become legal for the first time. It will be possible, of course, for some bookmakers, credit bookmakers in particular, to apply for and to receive their permits earlier than that—next year —but the effective date by which they must have them would be 1st May, and that is the date which should be in the Amendment, because it is the date which matters to most people.
The other date which is of concern to the House is in relation to Clause 6.1 think that the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was not in the House earlier this afternoon when my hon. Friend accepted an Amendment that that date should not be earlier than six months after the coming into operation of Clauses 2 and 4; and, therefore, the date affecting street bookmakers and their permits would not be earlier than 1st November, 1961.
Those are the sort of dates which we have in mind at the moment and which, subject to what happens in another place, will be put out for discussion with the representatives of the interested bodies.
I was asked about the Peppiatt Report. We are to have a debate the week after next on that subject, and I should be out of order in discussing it on the Amendment, except to say that when I made a statement on 3rd May about the Peppiatt Report I said that it would be sufficient to fit in with the Peppiatt timetable if this Part became law in the early months of next year. On the timetable which I have put forward as provisional, the date by which the Peppiatt Committee's proposals must receive Royal Assent would be 1st May, 1961. Beyond that, I do not wish to comment on the Peppiatt Committee's proposals.
The right hon. Member for South Shields asks whether we can do all this by the early months of next year. I have no doubt that we can establish the licensing machinery and that a great number of licensing applications can be considered in the early months of next


year. I have no reason to suppose that all bookmakers' permits could not be granted by 1st May, but I do not suggest that all betting offices will be established by that date. I never had that impression. I have little doubt that many of them will be established, however, and that thereafter the justices will have to continue meeting until such time as they have granted the number of applications which they consider reasonable.
I hope that I have helped the House in giving the provisional timetable, which we shall discuss as soon as possible. I do not suppose that the hon. Member for Islington, East wants to press his Amendment, because he will see that there will be different days for different Parts of the Bill, but the date in respect of Clause 2 and Clause 4, the important Clauses of the Bill, is, I suggest, 1st May.

Mr. Fletcher: I am sure that the whole House will welcome the right hon. Gentleman's announcement. Whether he has been rather optimistic in his prophecy about the date on which the Parts of the Bill can be brought into operation is another matter. Some of us feel that it will take him rather longer than he suggests, and it will certainly take longer for those who obtain licences to obtain all the premises which are required.

Mr. Wigg: I should like to say "Thank you" to the right hon. Gentleman for giving us that statement. I am sure that it will help everyone. In the years to come, 1st May, 1961, will be an historic date in Scotland's history. On that day, for the first time, the police will start to administer the law.

Mr. Fletcher: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, there is no need for me to press the Amendment, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — First Schedule.—(BOOKMAKER'S PERMITS, BETTING AGENCY PERMITS AND BETTING OFFICE LICENCES.)

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, in page 24, line 11, after "area" to insert:
who may sit in two or more divisions".
I suggest that it will be for the convenience of the House also to take the Amendment in page 24, line 12, after "committee", insert:
or a division thereof".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That will be convenient.

Mr. Vosper: The Government have tabled the two Amendments in response to a request made in Committee by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that licensing justices should be able to sit in divisions. That is the purpose of the Amendment. It is a reasonable proposition.

Mr. Ede: This completely meets the point I raised in Committee, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for having done this at least towards making the pushing on with the granting of licences feasible.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 24. line 12, after "committee", insert:
or a division thereof".—[Mr. Vosper.]

Mr. James Mclnnes: I beg to move, in page 24, line 13, to leave out sub-paragraph (b) and to insert:
(b) the sheriff court of the area in which the permit or licence is intended to operate.
The purpose of the Amendment is to provide that the appropriate authority for the granting of licences and permits in Scotland shall be the sheriff court and not the local licensing court as provided in the Bill. I move the Amendment not only because I have grave doubts about the ability of local licensing courts in Scotland to undertake the granting or renewal of bookmakers' permits, betting agency permits, or betting office licences, but also because I have serious doubts about the desirability of placing this additional responsibility on local licensing authorities in Scotland.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland fully recognises and appreciates the tremendous volume of work undertaken by those at present constituting the local licensing bench. These people are public representatives, and as councillors they serve on a variety of committees of the local authority— housing, planning, education, and other committees.
As magistrates they have to undertake their job of presiding at local police courts. As members of the licensing authority, they have to deal with the licensing of public halls, dance halls, theatres, public houses, billiards rooms, hackney carriages, even chimney sweeps,


and a host of other licences. That is quite a formidable task for any councillor, magistrate or member of the local licensing authority to undertake.
8.15 p.m.
Despite that knowledge possessed by the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, he persists in proposing in the Bill that the appropriate body to grant certificates, permits or licences, should be the local licensing authority. I am certain that the hon. Gentleman recognises also that as councillors, magistrates or as members of the local licensing authority these individuals as public representatives are under a good deal of public pressure in dealing with the one hundred and one provisions with which they have to contend, particularly as regards licensing.
There is another aspect which rather disturbs me. Very often solicitors or lawyers are members of a local authority. It is quite possible for them to find themselves in the position of having to defend a bookmaker at the local magisterial court. I have no doubt that that may be a somewhat embarrassing position. I feel certain that the legal fraternity will prefer to appear before the sheriff court rather than the local licensing court.
It seems somewhat strange that the Government should provide in the Bill that the responsibility for issuing licences in Scotland should rest with the local licensing authority, whilst at the same time they have appointed the Guest Committee to go into the whole question of the licensing laws in Scotland. In its terms of reference the Committee is asked to consider the constitution of licensing courts and courts of appeal. It is somewhat odd that under the Bill the Government have chosen the local licensing court, which may be completely reformed by the Guest Committee, if the Government adopts its Report.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland indicated in Committee that what the licensing bench had to judge were matters of opinion and not matters of provable fact. He said that in any question of opinion it was desirable that there should be more than one opinion in the court, and for that reason it was suggested that the appropriate body should be the local licensing court.
There may be a case for appointing an entirely new type of court. I do not know if the Joint Under-Secretary rules out that possibility. The sheriff would be helped in arriving at his opinion by the provision in paragraph 5 of the First Schedule. It is there provided that "the applicant"—that is, the individual applying for a licence—
shall send a copy of the application to the appropriate officer of police and, in the case of an application for the grant of a betting office licence, to the appropriate local authority …
It seems conceivable that if the appropriate local authority and the police were represented at the sheriff court when licences and permits were being granted, the sheriff would be helped considerably in his deliberations. The local authority and the local police could guide him as to the number of licences that should be granted in a year. For instance, if there were twenty applications, the local authority and the police might, because of their local knowledge, be able to advise the sheriff that only ten should be granted.
Therefore, in all the circumstances, it is most desirable to take this work entirely out of the hands of the local licensing authority, which is already grossly overloaded with matters on which the public exercise a great deal of pressure, and the Joint Under-Secretary would be well advised to accept the Amendment.

Sir J. Duncan: I support the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Mclnnes), as I did when we dealt with this aspect of the Bill in Committee. Although it might not be possible for my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary to accept this Amendment as it is, I seriously hope that he will consider it in some other form, either by having a new tribunal to deal both with this sort of licensing and with liquor licensing, or remitting it to the Guest Committee to look at from the licensing point of view. I press him now to accept the Amendment, because I believe that we should get this business out of the hands of the elected magistrates.
My hon. Friend the Joint Undersecretary said in committee that the sheriffs principal did not object, in principle, although there would be difficulty with regard to staffing, but that the Sheriffs-Substitute Association objected


on the grounds that it would overload them. I want to call my hon. Friend's attention to an Answer that the Minister of Housing and Local Government gave me on 3rd May, when I asked whether he intended to issue a new Use Classes Order to deal specifically with betting offices. The Parliamentary Secretary replied:
Yes. My right hon. Friend proposes to amend the Use Classes Order so as to secure that where the establishment of a betting office involves development under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, as it normally will, it will require planning permission. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be taking corresponding action in Scotland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1960; Vol. 622, c. 58.]
If planning committees are to give planning permission for every betting office—as they normally will, as these are bound to involve some sort of development or alteration—the sheriffs substitute will have very much less to do, because the planning authorities will eliminate a large number of places that are unsuitable because of position, type of accommodation or for other reasons. If we could get this division, with planning permission on the grounds of accommodation or situation being granted by the licensing authorities, as I would like to see, the sheriff would be left to deal with the man. If we could get that division, I do not think that—except in the first year, perhaps—the sheriffs substitute would be overloaded to the extent they fear.
I only add, in support of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central, that I do not think that it is recognised in the House as a whole that, unlike those in England, all our magistrates in Scotland are elected. They are subjected to a great number of pressures to which they should not be subject, and in the interests of democracy it would be very much better if the pressures to which the elected magistrates, the elected councillors are subjected in Scotland—as magistrates in England are not subjected —were got rid of. This sort of business should be in the hands of the sheriff, to whom everyone will look with respect, and whose decisions will be accepted without question by applicants for licences.

Mr. N. Macpherson: This Amendment, or one something like it, was

moved and discussed in Committee. At that time, I undertook to look further into the matter, and that I have done. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in conjunction with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, has given much anxious thought to it, but I must tell the House that we are still not in a position to accept the Amendment, and I had better tell the House why that is.
I fully recognise the force of the arguments that have been put forward by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Mclnnes) and by my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan). This was not an easy decision to reach. The arguments on both sides seemed quite strong. The argument about the volume of work cuts both ways, and I should have thought that if it were a question of a choice between two evils, either of overloading the magistrates or of overloading the sheriff —who is, after all, responsible for the administration of justice—it would be wiser to overload the magistrates.
There is an additional possible reason. It may be that we overestimate a little the amount of inconvenience that will be suffered by the licensing courts, particularly in the burghs where the members of the courts are all elected representatives. The licensing courts already meet in March and October, and these are two of the months chosen for the meetings to consider betting permits and licences. The probability is that much of the extra work could be combined with their existing work, and so there should be much less interference and disruption of their work than there would be, on the other hand, in placing this intermittent load on the sheriff court.
8.30 p.m.
I recognise, of course, that elected representatives are always under public pressure. But, on the other hand, they are elected to discharge social duties in the community. It seems to the Government—this is, I think, the core of the matter—that this is a responsibility of a social character which more properly belongs to the elected magistrates rather than to the sheriff court. I ask the House to consider the actual grounds for refusal to grant or renew a betting office licence, particularly the discretionary ones in paragraph 20 (b) of the First Schedule.
The appropriate authority has to consider the location of the premises and their suitability. Although I admit that the sheriff could receive evidence about it, I should have thought that that was more the sort of matter which the magistrates were already considering in their tasks to which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central referred. Then, the authority has to consider whether
the grant or renewal would be inexpedient haying regard to the demand for the time being in the locality for the facilities afforded by licensed betting offices and to the number of such offices for the time being available to meet that demand.
Again, that seems to the Government to be a task of a social character, and the sheriff has nothing to go on. If the House were to lay down a norm for the sheriffs to follow, then a sheriff could, perhaps, discharge the third task of considering whether the premises have been properly conducted under the licence.
On the whole, it seems to the Government that this is a task which more properly belongs to the magistrates. Apart from that, as my hon. Friend reminded the House, we took the advice of the Sheriffs-Substitute Association itself, and its view was that this was, at least in part, a discretionary matter not suitable for decision by a single judge, at any rate in the first instance. The Bill provides for an appeal to the sheriff. In passing, I observe that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central has not followed his Amendment to the point of providing an alternative means of appeal, though 1 quite realise that he had in mind the sheriff principal.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus has suggested that the work should be given to special tribunals set up for the purpose. Here again, we are in difficulty because of the time factor. It is never easy to find members to staff certain tribunals, and, of course, a very large number of them would have to be found all over the country. The process of setting up these courts would inevitably take a considerable time and it might well postpone the operation of the Bill according to the timetable envisaged.
My hon. Friend drew attention to the fact that this was one of the subjects which had been referred to the Guest Committee, as did the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central. The Guest Committee is looking into the constitution of the

licensing courts. In the first instance, when we decided to put the licensing courts in the Bill for this purpose, we did it in full knowledge that that was so and we realised that, in a way, it was odd to entrust a new function to licensing courts at the very moment when they were about to be subject to scrutiny by that Committee. Without committing the Government, I can say that it seems reasonable and logical that any changes which might be recommended by the Guest Committee and accepted by the Government should be applied to the courts as well in their betting licensing functions as in their liquor licensing functions. The courts already deal with licences for monylenders, so adjustments outside liquor licensing would be necessary in any case. If the Guest Committee recommends that the functions should be transferred from the licensing court to some other tribunal, it will, presumably, be possible to cover betting and money lending as well as liquor licensing functions.
I hope that the House will consider that I have dealt as fully as possible with the reasons which we think outbalance the reasons advanced by the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend in favour of the sheriff as the licensing authority in the first instance. We think that the arguments are in favour of the licensing court, and that is why we have not tabled an Amendment.
I hope the House will find the reasons that I have given adequate, but we are prepared to listen to any other argument on the subject.

Mr. Mclnnes: When the hon. Gentleman says that he is prepared to listen to any other argument, obviously it will not be here but in another place.

Mr. Macpherson: What I meant to imply was that I do not think that any new argument has been put forward tonight different from the argument we had in Committee. If any new arguments are put forward, we shall be prepared to listen to them.

Miss Margaret Herbison: The Joint Under-Secretary of State said that no new arguments have been put forward. That may be so. It seems to me, however, that the main burden of the case put forward by the


hon. Gentleman was that our proposal would overload the sheriffs with work. He said that if there were a great volume of work it would be better to overload the magistrates rather than the sheriffs. At another stage in his speech he said that there would be much less interference with the work of magistrates than that of the sheriffs. He seemed to think that if the Amendment were accepted far too much work would be placed on the sheriffs.
I do not think that that is a sound argument in a case like this. What the Government have to decide is the correct method of dealing with such a matter. A very sound case was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Mclnnes) and supported by the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan). The Joint Under-Secretary has not given a proper reply to that sound argument. Suppose that the Committee considering the work of licensing courts recommended that licensing should not be in the hands of magistrates and that it should be in the hands of the sheriffs? Will the Joint Undersecretary and the Government then come back with the argument that this would mean too much work for the sheriffs? Again, that argument could not be accepted.
There are very great pressures on public representatives. The great majority of them are able to resist those pressures, but there are one or two who cannot do so. Because of that, in passing legislation in this House we ought to ensure that real justice will be done —justice to the person seeking the licence and justice to all the other individuals in the community who may be affected by the granting or non-granting of a licence.
I do not doubt that the Joint Undersecretary and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland have given consideration to this matter since the Committee stage, but the reply that we have had tonight is still very unsatisfactory. If he cannot give a further reply tonight, I ask him to take into account what has been said and try to find a means of dealing with this important matter when the Bill goes to another place. I am sure that both sides

of the House want the same thing—real justice and to prevent great pressures being put on public representatives. I do not mean pressure of business. The Minister realises what I mean.

Mr. Mclnnes: I am not attracted in any way by the arguments adduced by the Joint Under-Secretary of State. He seemed to canalise the position as though it was a matter of the volume of work that has to be undertaken, on the one hand, by the sheriff and, on the other hand, by the elected public representatives on the licensing bench.
If I have any knowledge of either of those duties, I can say quite definitely and without fear of contradiction—and I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman would attempt to deny it—that there is a great volume of work that public representatives have to undertake, first, as councillors, secondly, as magistrates and, thirdly, as members of the licensing court. As councillors, they have to serve on housing, education and other committees, as magistrates they have to serve at the local police courts and then they have to undertake the volume of work on the licensing bench dealing with licences, permits, certificates and things of that kind.
I am satisfied that initially, under the Bill, there will be a tremendous demand for permits, licences and the like, but does not a somewhat similar situation arise at Parliamentary elections? There is a great rush and the sheriff has to bring in additional staff. Surely, a somewhat similar procedure could be followed to deal with the initial rush under the Bill.
I am reminded by the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) that the sheriffs principal had no objections concerning the sheriffs, but that the objections came from the sheriffs substitute. I should like to know the precise nature of their objections, apart from the question of the volume of work.

Mr. N. Macpherson: The main core of their objection was that this was, at least in part, a discretionary matter and not suitable for a single judge. In other words, when a decision is taken concerning a citizen's livelihood, his application and the renewal of his permit, it is surely normal to have more than one opinion.

Mr. Mclnnes: There are many issues involving the livelihood of people upon which the sheriffs make definite determinations and decisions. In almost all aspects of life, in whatever penalty he imposes upon an individual, the sheriff is involved in something which affects the individual's livelihood.
The Joint Under-Secretary is opening the door to practices that he and I and every Member of the House would want to avoid. I am satisfied that the legal fraternity would prefer to appear before the sheriff than before the licensing court, which already is cluttered up with the issuing of permits and licences. I have gone through all the types of licences that they are responsible for issuing.
8.45 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary revealed the further feature that the licensing courts meet in April and October, which are two of the months suggested in the Bill. The licensing benches meet in those months for the specific purpose of issuing the liquor licences. In some instances, they have to sit for several days. What we shall be doing is again to overload them with licences for bookmakers' permits and things of that kind. I think that it is grossly unfair to public representatives, and I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Scotland, will give further thought to all that is involved. If they do that, I am satisfied that they will make arrangements for the Bill to be amended in another place to meet our wishes.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move in page 25, line 25, after "particulars" to insert:
and, if the application is for a permit, give such references".
Perhaps, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, we might consider this Amendment together with the Amendments in page 29, lines 10 and 27. These Amendments cover a matter which was discussed in Committee. When I was pressed to provide for the submission of references by applicants for bookmakers' permits I was at first inclined to resist the pressure because I felt that the references might be of little value. The Committee, however, was quite clearly of the opinion that references should be provided, and these Amendments meet that point.
The Amendment will require references to be submitted and for the conditions to be subscribed in accordance with the First Schedule. The subsequent two Amendments make it quite clear that justices can refuse an application for a permit either because they think that the references are inadequate or, as originally they had power to do, because irrespective of the references they consider that the person is not a fit and proper person to hold a permit. Therefore, we have reinforced the original provisions of the Bill—which gave the justices power to refuse an application because they thought that the applicacant was not a fit and proper person— by the requirement that the applicant shall provide references. That, I hope, will meet the views of those Members of the Committee who wanted this additional safeguard inserted in the Bill.

Mr. Fletcher: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for putting down the Amendment because, as he said, by doing so he is meeting the viewpoint, which my right hon. Friend and I and others expressed in Committee, that it would be desirable that applicants should file references and that the authorities should be able to refuse the applications if they were not satisfied that satisfactory evidence had been supplied.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, in page 26, line 7, to leave out "appointed as aforesaid" and to insert:
of the meeting of the authority at which the application will be considered".
Perhaps it would be convenient to discuss at the same time the Amendment in line 13. These Amendments arise out of a point raised in Committee by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) with regard to the hearing of applications for permits or licences. He was desirous that some public notice should be given of the hearing for these permits and licences. These two Amendments empower and instruct the licensing justices to display a notice seven days in advance outside the court house or place where the hearing is to take place. I hope that this will meet the right hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Ede: It is important that this point should present no difficulty in the


administration of the law and that we should ensure that those people who are reasonably interested in the matter can find out all they want to know about the time and place of the meeting. I thank the right hon. Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 13, after "and", insert:
also cause notice of that meeting to be displayed at the place where the meeting is to be held in a position where the notice may conveniently be read by members of the public; and ".—[Mr. Vosper.]

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, in page 26, line 15, at the end to insert:
from the appropriate officer of police, the appropriate local authority or any other person ".
We might take this together with the Amendment in page 27, line 23, leave out "any" and insert:
the appropriate officer of police the appropriate local authority or any other ".
This again is in response to a point raised in Committee by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). He had some doubts about the position of the local authority which was defined in the First Schedule. I said then that the intention was that the local authority would have the right to object to any application. I thought that he was uncertain whether there was sufficient authority in the Schedule for the local authority to object and for it to incur expenditure. I promised to consult the local authorities. They were a little uncertain about the matter. To make things quite certain these words are proposed to be inserted to empower local authorities to object and to incur expenditure.
The reference to the police is put in this form in the Amendment because it might be thought that otherwise a chief officer of police did not likewise have similar powers. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) wondered whether the local planning authority should not be consulted at the same time. When planning was discussed between the local authorities and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, this was put to them, but in view of the changes that are to be made in planning law they decided that they did

not need to take advantage of this provision.

Mr. Ede: Once again, I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has removed all doubts in this matter. This will add to the certainty with which all parties can proceed in a particular part of the matter where doubts might have been very damaging to good public administration.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, in page 26, to leave out lines 23 to 27 and to insert:
 satisfies the authority—

(a) that he is carrying on, or proposes to carry on, business on his own account as a bookmaker wholly or mainly within an area comprised in or adjoining the authority's area; and
(b) that he or a predecessor in title to that business was so carrying on that business during the whole or a substantial part of the period of twelve months ending with second day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine."


The Amendment arises from discussion in Committee of a point which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South-end, East (Mr. McAdden). Hon. Members will recollect that a preference is given to bookmakers who were in business for a period before the coming into operation of the Bill. My hon. Friend asked whether if a bookmaker died during that period his preference could be extended to his widow. I promised to examine the point. The Amendment goes a little further. It extends the preference not only to his widow but also to his offspring or to any person to whom he may have disposed his business. It will apply not only to the bookmaker who dies during the period in question but also to the bookmaker who retires from business. We think that it is a reasonable change to make.
In the second part of the Amendment the word "substantial" occurs. That is because it could so happen that the bookmaker was ill for part of the year of preference and was unable to carry on his business and it seemed unfair that on that account he should lose his preference. That was not a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South-end, East, but it is one which we have thought right to incorporate in the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 27, line 23, leave out "any" and insert:
the appropriate officer of police the appropriate local authority of any other".

In line 10, after "(a)", insert:
they are not satisfied that the applicant is, or ".

In line 27, after "if", insert:
they are not satisfied that the applicant is, or".—[Mr. Vosper.]

Mr. N. Macpherson: I beg to move, in page 29, line 41 to leave out " in Scotland ".
Perhaps it may be convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if we also consider with this the following Amendment, in page 29, line 42, leave out " in its application to Scotland".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That would be convenient.

Mr. Macpherson: In the Bill as introduced the delay in bringing into force the power to cancel a permit in the case of a conviction under Clause 8, relating to the keeping of an illegal betting office, was confined to Scotland but it was extended in Committee to England by an Amendment, as a result of the disclosure of the fact that illegal betting offices were not the perquisite of Scotland but were also known in England. This Amendment would no doubt also have been made in the Committee had it not been that we took the First Schedule before we reached Clause 8.
The effect of the Amendment is to extend to England as well the duty of the appropriate authority to disregard any conviction for an offence under subsection (2) of Section 1 of this Act, which relates to the illegal use of permits for cash betting, before the day appointed for the purpose of Section 6. It is thus doing more or less the same thing as was done in Committee in respect of Clause 8.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 42 leave out "in its application to Scotland".—[Mr. N. Macpherson.]

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 30, line 17, at the end to insert:
(iv) that planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Acts, 1947 and 1959 for the development of the premises as a

betting office has been granted or is deemed to be so granted or that no such permission is required in respect thereof.
The Amendment deals with a point which was discussed in Committee but was left in a rather unsatisfactory position. We are all anxious to know whether, before an applicant's application is considered by the licensing authority, he should have obtained permission from the planning authority under the Town and Country Planning Acts. An applicant will want to know whether he should first go to the local authority and obtain planning permission or go to the licensing authority and get its permission on the ground that he is a suitable applicant before endeavouring to obtain planning permission in respect of the premises which he wants to open as a betting office.
As I understand it, both permissions will be required. In reply to a Written Question the right hon. Gentleman has made a statement with regard to the change of user position which is satisfactory as far as it goes. My view—and it is shared by local authorities—is that the planning considerations involved in the siting of betting offices are of such importance that planning authority should be obtained before an applicant gets his licence. I hope that that view will be accepted by the Government. If so, effect can be given to it by accepting the Amendment.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: The Amendment appears to raise a matter of great importance. I am not sure that I agree with its terms, but I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) that we should be informed a good deal more about the Government's intention in this connection, because the way in which the Bill will work depends to no small extent upon the way in which the licensing law and the planning law are properly dovetailed. I raised this question in the Second Reading debate; indeed, I believe I was the first to do so. The Government have been an unconscionable time making up their mind, or announcing what they have made up their mind to do, and I hope that we shall get a fairly full statement this evening.
I assume that it will be decided that betting offices are to be put into an entirely separate class for planning purposes. It would be wrong to classify


them either with shops or with offices. They are neither, and if they were lumped in with either it might lead to difficulties. I also assume that it is necessary to have both a licence, under the Bill, and planning permission, under the Town and Country Planning Acts, in respect of each betting office, because separate considerations affect the two classes of permit. The justices will have to decide upon the suitability of the applicant, which is certainly not a planning consideration, and also the suitability of the office, from an internal point of view—that is to say, whether it complies with the provisions of this Measure and is generally suitable as an office. The planning authority, on the other hand, will have to decide upon the suitability of the site itself.
It seems to me that these two decisions may be in conflict with one another. The obvious example is where it is proposed that there should be a betting office next door, for example, to a youth hostel or a chapel. That decision is primarily a planning decision. On the other hand, I think it also falls within the terms of the Bill, and I should like to know from the Government whether that decision will rest with the justices or with the local planning authority, because I think it is quite important that we should know who is going to decide that sort of question.
I am not suggesting that it would not be fairly easy to reconcile this sort of conflict by the new planning orders which will be made, but I should like to know how they are to be reconciled. On the other hand, I think that there is one aspect of this matter which cannot be dealt with simply by a new planning order, and which indeed would not be cared for by this Amendment, though the Amendment would go some way towards doing it. That is the period when the scheme is being brought into operation—the period of the first year after this Bill comes into operation, but before all the betting offices are started up. That applies most particularly to those areas in the South of England where there have been no betting offices of an illegal kind up to now.
By the First Schedule to the Bill, paragraph 20 (1, b, ii), justices may refuse an application on the ground

that the grant … would be inexpedient having regard to the demand for the time being in the locality for the facilities afforded by licensed betting offices and to the number of such offices for the time being available to meet that demand … 
In other words, the justices have to fix the number of betting offices that there will be in their areas. By paragraph 8 of the same Schedule, the one which we have just amended, though I should like to draw the attention of the House to its terms, because they are very important in this connection, special provisions are made for the transitional period—the period of bringing the scheme into operation. I will read the words unamended, as the Amendments do not affect this issue at all:
The appropriate authority shall not consider any application for the grant of a betting office licence before the appointed day and shall not grant any such application made before that day until they have considered all such applications so made; and for the period of one year commencing with that day the appropriate authority shall, in granting betting office licences, give preference over any other applicant to the Board and to any person who during the whole of the period of twelve months ending with the second day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine, was carrying on business on his own account as a bookmaker wholly or mainly within an area comprised in or adjoining the authority's area.
That is the whole provision in this Bill dealing with this transitional period, and I think it is insufficient and will require some addition.
Let us take the case of the large village or small town, the sort of area where one betting shop will be what is needed, an area which is now catered for by one bookie, or bookie's agent, in a newspaper shop. That person will apply to the justices for a licence and will be entitled to preference, so that no one else will be able to get a licence. On the other hand, if he is carrying on business in the sort of typical small village shop which I know, he will be quite unable to meet the other provisions of the Bill and to obtain planning permission to carry on in those premises. Someone else, possibly the agent of a more substantial bookie from a greater distance away, may get planning permission in respect of some other premises in the town.
There is a direct conflict and I do not see how it is easily reconciled. On the whole, it is a problem which may be


covered in the case of a small town, but in the larger towns there will be enormous difficulty, and I am now thinking of the sort of town where half-a-dozen or a dozen betting offices will be required. All sorts of people will be applying, some for betting office licences and others for planning permission. Even if it is said that one application is to be made before the other, how will the two be tied up? It will be quite troublesome to obtain planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Acts for any premises to be used for betting purposes and the whole thing may be wasted if subsequent applications to the justices fail, either because of these transitional provisions, or because the justices say that they have already granted enough such licences.
There must be some machinery for tying together the two ends. We need something, not necessarily so elaborate, in the nature of the legislation dealing with licensed premises in new towns, which on the whole has worked quite satisfactorily.
I have spoken at some length on the subject because I think that it is important. I have never disguised the fact that I do not like betting offices and would have preferred another system. However, having accepted them, I want them to work. If they are to work, they have to be brought in smoothly. If there is a failure at the start, I fear for the ultimate success of the scheme. I beg the Government most carefully to reconsider the matter and to do what is necessary to bring in the scheme smoothly, so as to reconcile these two different and difficult considerations.

Mr. Ede: I support the Amendment, but I also support the proposals made towards the end of his speech by the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), and I hope that in another place the Government will take advantage of the presence of the Lord Chancellor to make such changes. During the war, the present Lord Chancellor, when my now noble Friend Lord Morrison, who was then Home Secretary, was indisposed, presented to the House and carried through provisions fox licensing planning under which the blitzed towns have ever since had their licensing provisions made.
9.15 p.m.
The problem which confronts the Government in this matter is not dissimilar from the problem which confronted them in the circumstances which led the present Lord Chancellor to promote the Bill which I have mentioned. This would mean a joint committee composed of an equal number of representatives of the licensing justices and members of the local planning authority. The committee would meet, under a chairman to be appointed by the Secretary of State, to lay out the area covered by the committee with betting shops. The number, the situation and the general suitability of the arrangements would be settled by the committee.
This has worked exceedingly well in the layout of the towns brought within the purview of the Measure. I think it is the only satisfactory way to reconcile the conflicts which are likely to arise, and which have been described by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) and by the hon. baronet the Member for Hendon, South. The representatives of the two bodies sitting together and with their feet under the same table would argue out the matter. Exactly who makes the final proposal which is accepted will never be recognised probably even by those taking part in the discussions. It is a workmanlike way in which to do the job. It would remove a great deal of friction and irritation, and ensure that in the end the public got what resulted in the way of facilities from the best consideration by both sides to the arrangement. I hope that the Government will persuade the Lord Chancellor to bring his mind to bear on the problem, and I am quite sure that if that happens they will have the same success as attended his efforts in the earlier Measure to which I have alluded.

Mr. N. Macpherson: This is an important matter and in replying I feel that I must address myself in the main to the Amendment, although I have taken careful note of what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) and by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher). I shall return to what they have to say.
As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Islington, East, since the Committee stage an announcement has been made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to the effect that a separate category is to be established in the Use Classes Order for betting offices. Regarding planning permission, clearly we must adjust whatever we do within the framework of the planning Acts. Under the planning Acts what determines whether a separate planning permission is required is whether or not there is a material change of use. Whether planning permission is required to change an existing office to a bookmaker's office depends on whether there is a material change of use. An existing office used for betting purposes might not require planning permission on the ground that the change would not in itself be material. The Amendment that has been moved recognises that there will be some cases in which there is no material change of use.

Mr. Fletcher: If a new category is to be introduced, does that mean that anything which changes into the new category will involve a new classification?

Mr. Macpherson: I was trying to deal with the Amendment before us. It says:
that planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Acts, 1947 and 1959, for the development of the premises as a betting office has been granted or is deemed to be so granted or that no such permission is required in respect thereof.
Of course, the condition in which
no such planning permission is required in respect thereof
is where there is no material change of use. There will be some cases where there is no material change of use, but the difficulty under the planning Acts is that it is not until that matter is decided by the planning authorities—and it may go on appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in Scotland or to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government in England or to the courts on a point of law—that one can know definitely whether there is or is not a material change of use.
What the Amendment presupposes is that the licensing authority will satisfy itself either that planning permission has been granted or that it is not needed.

Where planning permission is not needed it can do so in two ways only. The first is if the planning authority gives a certificate that planning permission is not necessary. There is no machinery for that at present. It is up to the individual who wants to carry out some development to decide, in the first instance for himself, whether an application to the local planning committee is necessary, and to proceed accordingly. The alternative is that the licensing authority would have to decide itself that planning permission was not needed. I cannot quite decide which of these alternatives the hon. Member had in mind, 'but certainly the licensing authority would not be competent to make that decision itself. So, clearly, the second alternative is not appropriate in that case.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Surely the position would be that this would be dealing with both grant and renewal? In the case of an original grant, for this is a separate use class, there would by definition be a change of use. If it is an application for renewal, there would not be a change of use because, by definition, it would be the same use. Is that not correct?

Mr. Macpherson: If the premises are at present being used for the purposes of betting, then it may be that there is not a material change of use. What I am saying is that at the present time there may not be the necessity for planning permission. That being so, it is not the case that an application must be made to the local planning authority in every case. So we have this initial difficulty which I am pointing out, that either a certificate would have to be obtained from the planning authority that no planning permission was necessary, in lieu of planning permission, or alternatively, the licensing authority in considering and making up its mind and satisfying itself on the point would have to be satisfied itself and reach a decision that planning permission was not necessary, if it had not been obtained. That I am saying is outside its competence. That is a matter for the planning committee itself to decide, and nothing but the planning committee can decide it. The licensing authority could not decide it.
To justify a new departure in procedure such as an application to the planning authority for a certificate that


planning permission was not necessary in every case, it would be necessary to show that the Bill is introducing circumstances without precedent, but there is nothing new about requiring a licence and a planning permission from two different authorities. Applicants for liquor licences and licences to sell petroleum spirit already have to do that, and it appears that the resulting inconvenience is not intolerable. There is no order of priority in those cases; there are two hoops, and both have to be passed through. Of course it might help the licensing authority, I agree, to know whether planning permission had been granted, but from the experience of liquor and petroleum spirit licensing it does not seem at all essential that it should have been granted in advance, because there are these two separate procedures going side by side under two separate sets of legislation.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: In the case of current year-to-year licensing, what my hon. Friends says is true, but in the case of liquor licensing, where a new start has to be made, as it were, in both the case of the Act referred to by the right hon. Gentleman and the Act to which I have referred, there has to be separate machinery.

Mr. Macpherson: I appreciate that, but this is not what the Amendment does. The Amendment would not set up the special machinery. I have taken the most careful note of what my hon. Friend said, but I am bound to address myself to the Amendment.
It might be an embarrassment for a planning authority to be asked to consider granting planning permission for the use of premises which had already been given a betting office licence. I recognise that for bookmakers at present engaged in street betting there may be cases of difficulty in finding premises in time, and it might be that the betting office licences were granted before the planning permission. On the other hand, it would be at least as much an embarrassment for the licensing authority to be asked to consider giving a betting office licence for premises which had perhaps been granted planning permission by the Minister on an appeal from the local planning authority. That would be just as much an embarrassment to the licensing authority and would inhibit

its choice just as much as, perhaps even more than, the other way round.
Apart from other considerations, the Amendment would undoubtedly prolong the process of getting the two permissions in many cases. Each application might take as long as three months. If either were to be taken to appeal, the time would be very much longer, and in the extreme case of an application under the Amendment which went first to the planning authority, and from the planning authority on appeal to the Minister, where it was granted, and then went to the licensing court, and went on appeal in Scotland to the sheriff, there would be a very prolonged procedure indeed.
If there were any great advantage in the Amendment, such a delay might be acceptable and regarded as regrettable but unavoidable, but we see no such advantage, because the same kind of procedure as we have suggested has long applied, and there have been two separate hurdles to be crossed, both in respect of petroleum spirit licensing and in respect of liquor licensing. We do not see that it is necessary to evolve this new procedure. We think that it would be much better to allow the two procedures to go on separately as they are doing in the other two cases under totally separate legislation.
9.30 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South was not in the House when my right hon. Friend dealt with the time which may be taken before we get the licensing procedure into effect. It is likely to be a year from now at any rate. Already we know that bookmakers are making such provision as they can and are looking forward to getting their premises. They will be able to make planning application well in advance.
It may be said that it would make it all the easier in some cases for planning permission to be obtained first before permission was obtained from the licensing board for a licensed betting office. On the other hand, there is no reason to hold up an application to the licensing court, and there might be severe prejudice at a later time for someone who experienced great difficulty in finding suitable premises and ran hard up against the end of the year to which my


right hon. Friend referred. If at that stage he had first to obtain planning permission before he got his betting office licence, he might miss the boat altogether of the preference—

Mr. Fletcher: Why? I do not quite understand the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Macpherson: Because the year might have elapsed before he had actually obtained planning permission, and he might be severely prejudiced in that way.
We have made special provision to ensure that bookmakers who operate locally just now should have priority. We attach importance to that provision, and we think that it would be a mistake to put those bookmakers in jeopardy by insisting that they got planning permission first.
For all those reasons, I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In page 31, line 33, leave out " as to " and insert " of ".— [Mr. Vosper.]

Orders of the Day — Second Schedule.—(RULES FOR LICENSED BETTING OFFICES.)

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, in page 34, line 35, to leave out from "transactions" to end of line 36.
Since the Committee stage, the definition of a betting transaction has been inserted into the Bill. The words
or the paying out of winnings on bets
become redundant in the Schedule. This Amendment deletes them.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 34, line 36, at the end to insert:
No licensed premises shall be open to the public after 6 30 p.m.".

Mr. Speaker: I believe that it would be for the convenience of the House also to discuss the Amendments in page 34, line 36, at end insert:
Provided that on any day on which licensed premises are lawfully open they shall not be required to close before seven thirty o'clock in the evening.
and in page 34, line 36, at end insert:
2. No licensed premises shall be open for public business after 6.30 p.m.

Mr. Fletcher: That will be convenient. I hope that it will be possible to deal with this quite briefly. We had a considerable discussion in Committee about the hours during which licensed premises should be open. As the right hon. Gentleman will remember, in its original form the Second Schedule contained a number of rules with regard to licensed betting offices. Most of those rules were eliminated during our discussion in Committee, and there are now very few rules left.
Some of my hon. Friends and I thought it desirable, in the interests of public order generally, that there should be some limitations on the hours at which betting offices are to be open. Various views were expressed, and in the form in which the Bill finally left the Committee it was arranged that those hours should be prescribed by Statutory Instruments to be made by the Government. If I recollect correctly, some assurance—although I am not sure that it was a definite one—was given that it was the Government's intention that betting offices should close at 6.30 p.m.
Other suggestions were canvassed in Committee. One was that betting offices should be closed during racing hours, but there were considerable objections to that. Another suggestion was that there shall be no restriction at all on betting premises remaining open, but I think that the general consensus of opinion was that there should be some limitation on the hours of opening.
If the Government are still minded to prescribe 6.30 as the closing hour, the effect of the Amendment would be to write that definitely into the Bill, and I think that that would be regarded by a great many of us as being more satisfactory than leaving it to regulation.

Mr. Wigg: This is another of the Amendments put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) in which his kindly heart has led him astray. He overlooks the fact that at certain seasons of the year, and particularly at this time of the year and onwards, there is evening racing. Therefore, by his system, any betting transaction on racing that takes place at night would be precluded from the operations that are undertaken through the betting shops. As a consequence of being with


my hon. Friend on the Standing Committee, I know that he is a loftier and more noble person than I, so I would know that people do go to race meetings after 6.30 at night, but he would not. I think that that is the explanation of the oversight.
It will, of course, be completely unknown to my hon. Friend, but people who back horses do occasionally win. Many of those who win work until 6 o'clock. They then have to journey from work to where the betting shop happens to be. It may even be that if the win is large enough they may be more concerned about collecting the cash than staying at work, but, in any case, it is not right that they should be deprived of their winnings for a moment longer than necessary.
I suggest, therefore, that my hon. Friend attends Alexandra Park next time there is an evening meeting so that he may know what goes on very near his own constituency, and that he should, in the meantime, withdraw the Amendment and leave it to the Government to frame their Statutory Instrument in accordance with the existing practices of the British people, both in terms of attendance at race meetings in the evening and the collection of winnings. Personally, I hope that the vast majority of my constituents who may attend in the evenings will do so not only to bet but to collect.

Sir J. Duncan: I do not want to repeat what I said in Committee, but I most strongly support the idea of a definite national closing time. I am afraid that if it is left to the local licensing justices, or if regulations are framed in such a way that there may be different closing times in different parts of the country, we shall get all the evils we now have with the present licensing laws where the closing hours vary in different areas. That is why I am so anxious to have a definite national closing time.
In Committee, I had an opening time in mind, but I have left that out in the Amendment I am now discussing. There is a great deal to be said for betting shops closing at 6.30. I know that there is evening racing just as well as the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) knows it. There is no earthly reason why people in the vicinity should not go and put their bets on on the course. Others can do it either in the lunch hour or on their

way home. If we have a definite closing hour, it will definitely have the effect of stopping what is going on in certain parts of the country—

Mr. Wigg: In Scotland.

Sir J. Duncan: —extending to greyhound racing. It is the almost unanimous view of the bookmakers that they do not want to be mixed up with greyhound racing in cash betting offices.

Mr. Wigg: Is not this another example of the way that pernicious habits in Scotland are fastened like a straitjacket on to our law-abiding English ways? If there is flagrant disregard of the law in Scotland, then let us deal with Scotland, or break the Union and separate Scotland from England.

Sir J. Duncan: Flagrant disregard of the law is one of the reasons for the Bill. In reply to the hon. Member for Dudley, it was earlier today denied completely that the police are in any way corrupt, just as my hon. Friend the Joint Undersecretary of State has denied it. I hope that the hon. Member for Dudley will forget that sort of reference. The police in Scotland are doing their best in face of a law which is totally unenforceable. From time to time, they make raids and arrest and bring before the courts betting office keepers, just as they do in England in respect of street bookmaking.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept either my Amendment or the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Islington, East. I believe that it would be a very great mistake—I do not think that any reputable bookmaker today wants it—to extend these arrangements to greyhound racing. I am anxious that what we suggest should be put in the Bill, but I hope that my right hon. Friend, if he cannot do that, will at least make quite clear to everyone concerned that there will be a 6.30 closing hour and it will not be altered.

Mr. McAdden: My Amendment, which is being considered at the same time, provides that the closing hour should be 7.30, not 6.30. This shows that there is a difference of opinion in the House about the time at which betting shops should close. It is important, therefore, for hon. Members on both sides to remember that we are moving into a new experience in cash betting


operations. It is surely wise not to write into the Bill any particular time because it may be that, in the light of experience, the time will have to be varied, making it either later or earlier, according to the pattern of social habits.
We do not want to have another Betting Bill in twelve months in order to make a change. I should be only too happy to accede to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). If the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) withdraws his Amendment and I withdraw mine, we shall be able to got on with our business and not hear any more Committee stage speeches.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I was very attracted by the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) when he dealt with the advisability of not putting any particular time in the Bill. I am bound to say, however, that I agree in toto with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan). I have always agreed with him in this matter.
It is my clear recollection that, in Committee, it was decided that there would be no opening hour, so to speak, but the closing hour would be 6.30 in the evening. I hope that my right hon. Friend will say that that is the present view and that 6.30 will be the closing hour in any event, even if he deals with it by regulation. I think that on the whole it is so fundamental to the major part of Part I that it would be better if it were actually set out.
9.45 p.m.
Many bookmakers do not want to be open in the evening. They have a long day anyway. People who bet off the course in the evening by cash are able to do so by 6.30, just as in the same way all bets on afternoon racing are placed by 12 o'clock. I think that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is misled by his own enthusiasm. It is within my knowledge that he always uses the telephone, which is free here, fortunately for us when we are confined here considering such matters as the Finance Bill. The telephone is largely used for evening betting. The amount of betting on horse racing in the evening in summer is so negligible that I do not

think that it ought to be a matter for legislation.
None of the bookmakers concerned with greyhound racing wants it. Certainly those who operate on the tracks do not want it. While I am attracted by the possibility of the desirability of change in the future law, I should have thought that 6.30 is the proper hour and I hope that the Government think that that is quite late enough an hour. As soon as the country knows that that is the hour, I should have thought that the sooner the same hours apply throughout the country the better.

Miss Bacon: Throughout our discussions on the Bill it has been evident that the divisions on it have not always been party divisions. That has been shown in this Amendment, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) is in agreement with the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan), and I, sitting with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East on the Front Bench, am more in agreement with the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden). One thing on which all of us will agree with the hon. Member for Southend, East is that we do not want another Betting and Gaming Bill, since we had 25 sittings on this Bill in Committee. We on this side have had free votes throughout the Bill. I think it entirely wrong that the party opposite should have thought it right that the Whips should be imposed. We on this side are free to disagree and to show our disagreement in the Lobbies, if necessary.
There is a good deal of force in what my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said, namely, that, quite apart from evening racing, people like to pick up their winnings. We should not forget that in a large part of the country the whole system of betting will be altered. In parts where we have had street runners and street betting, people who have placed bets have been able to collect their winnings the same day.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) is right in saying that the bookmakers do not want this, but people will want to pick up their winnings. It would be good sense to leave this matter to regulation and not be tied down to any time in the Bill.

Mr. Vosper: I am surprised to hear the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) say that those who place bets with bookmakers collect their winnings the same day. That is not my experience. My experience is that normally they collect their winnings the following day. However, that is not necessarily relevant to the matter that we are discussing.
In Committee, we discussed the possibility of an opening time, of a closed period during the afternoon and the question of a closing hour. At the end of our discussions the Committee, I think, accepted my advice that the only thing that we should settle on was a closing hour and that we should see how we went in respect of any other periods of the day. I said on that occasion that the Government's intention was, to begin with, that the closing hour should be 6.30 p.m. I am advised that in Scotland there are some reservations about the closing hour. Perhaps I had better qualify my statement by saying that, with the possible exclusion of Scotland, it is the intention that 6.30 should be the closing hour.
It has been asked why this should not be written in the Bill. It would be the easiest thing in the world to do that, but I do not want to do it for the reason which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) gave. If it were written in the Bill and if in a year's time it were proved wrong, it would be ten years before we could amend it. It has taken ten years to bring in this Bill. If we find that 6.30 is too early or that we have to take account of more evening racing, the time can be altered by regulation. We would also have the power to specify a closed period in the afternoon if we found that betting was becoming too prevalent. Therefore, I suggest that we leave the matter as it stands, so that the times will be prescribed. I give the undertaking, however, at least concerning England, that we shall start with a closing hour of 6.30 p.m.

Mr. Fletcher: I am relieved to have the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that the Government will adhere to their intention that for England the closing hour will be 6.30 and that it will be so prescribed in regulations. In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said,

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move in page 34, line 46, to leave out " and shall exhibit" and to insert:
shall exhibit on those premises".

Mr. Speaker: It may be convenient also to discuss the next Amendment, in line 47, after "and", insert "shall".

Mr. Vosper: Yes, Mr. Speaker. These Amendments deal with small points. There is doubt about the exhibition of notices under paragraph 3 of the Schedule. It is intended, as the first line makes clear, that the notices shall be exhibited on the outside of premises. Line 46 does not make that clear. The Amendments, therefore, are intended to make it clear that the notices shall bo exhibited on the outside of premises.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 47, after "and" insert "shall".—[Mr. Vosper.]

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, in page 34, line 49, at the end to insert:
or of signs of any description on the licensed premises, on any other premises which give access between the licensed premises and a street, and at any place within the prescribed distance of any part of the licensed premises or of such other premises as aforesaid".
The Amendment arises from the shortening of the Second Schedule which took place in Committee, as a result of which we have rather lost control of the signs which might be posted on the outside of betting offices. These words are intended to be added to the Schedule to make certain that no unauthorised sign is imposed either on the outside of betting offices, on premises in which they are situated or in corridors connecting the entrance to the betting office. The Amendment conforms with the original intention of the Bill and, I think, will generally meet the desire of the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, in page 35, line 3, to leave out from "for" to "shall" in line 4 and to insert:

(a) seeing any television broadcast; or
(b) hearing any sound broadcast which—

(i) is transmitted by wireless telegraphy within the meaning of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949, and is intended to be received by the general public; or


(ii) comprises matter other than information relating to events in connection with which betting transactions may be or have been effected on the licensed premises.

This Amendment fulfils the result of a discussion in Committee about television, radio and what is commonly known as the "blower". I then argued that radio and television were not suitable for a betting office on the grounds that they were not necessary for the conduct of the business and were liable to attract to the betting office people who would not otherwise frequent the premises. On the other hand, the "blower", which is the means of getting hold of information from the racecourse, was, I felt, an essential tool of the trade and part of the equipment of the office if the business was to be carried on properly and if the punter was to be safeguarded.
Therefore, it was the desire of the Committee that we should introduce an Amendment excluding television and radio, which was always the intention of the Government and of the Royal Commission, but that we should provide for the use of the "blower". This complicated looking Amendment provides for that.

Mr. Fletcher: As the Joint Undersecretary is aware, it is becoming increasingly common for people to carry about with them portable radio sets, which are becoming smaller and more compact and, of course, cheaper in price. Am I to understand that it is the intention of paragraph (5) of the Second Schedule, as amended, to prohibit anyone who goes into a betting office from taking a portable radio set with him?

Mr. Rees-Davies: May I add to that point? I said in Committee that, speaking for myself, I was absolutely satisfied that the complete Clause is quite inoperable. I do not want to go into the arguments I made first on Second Reading, but it is perfectly plain that people who have cafes, restaurants and other things next door will in fact use them for both sound and television, and that none of the other measures contained in the Schedule will prevent that taking place.
It would have been far wiser to leave out the whole question of sound and

television from this paragraph. The wording used is
no facilities for hearing or seeing any sound or television broadcast shall be provided … and neither the licensee nor any servant or agent of his shall cause or permit any such facilities to be provided …
We shall not cause or permit it to be provided if someone wants to take in his own set to listen to it for the afternoon. There are dozens of ways by which the trade will get round this. I felt that this was one of the unenforceable aspects and that it might lead to unfair trading by one betting office trying to attract custom to the detriment of another office by providing these facilities, and I still feel that it would be far better to exclude the paragraph altogether. I nearly moved the Amendment to that effect in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) which has not been moved. I should like the Government to reconsider this matter generally. If, however, they are adamant about it, they had better look at it carefully again if they want to ensure that people cannot take in radio sets, walkie-talkies or any other of the new gadgets, because this will be impossible of enforcement.

Mr. Vosper: I should like to look at the point which has been raised. I thought that would be excluded. These are rules made under Clause 4 and I think that the manager or proprietor of the betting shop would probably be at fault if a portable radio or television was brought into the premises.
I must look at what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), but I have no doubt that the Government are right, just as he believes that they are wrong. In Dublin, where they have had these offices for many years, what he has in mind concerning the provision of television in cafes next door has not happened. I believe in making these places attractive for betting without making them so attractive as to become the haunts of people who have no initial interest in betting, and I think that in this way we shall best serve the purpose of the Bill. Only time will prove whether my hon. Friend is right and I am wrong, but I believe that the provision now made is the right one.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, in page 35, line 8, at the end, to insert:
and no music, dancing or other entertainment shall be provided or allowed, and no refreshment of any kind shall be served, on those premises.
This Amendment is moved as a result of an undertaking which I gave after discussion of two Amendments discussed in Committee, one by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) and one by my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) relating to music, dancing and refreshments.

Sir J. Duncan: I should like to thank my right hon. Friend for putting in these words. I do not think that they are of very great importance. Nonetheless, I think that it ought to be clear that these betting offices are for racing and not for social purposes. As we are excluding refreshments, music and dancing, I think that these words will confine the betting offices to what they are intended to do and not beyond it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, in page 35, line 9, at beginning to insert:
Except for the licensee and any servant or agent of his.
This is a small point. The Bill as drafted prohibits access to a betting office via any other place of business. That was approved in Committee. Obviously, the staff of the betting office and the proprietor might want to move from his other place of business to the betting office, at the back or the front. As the Bill is now drafted that would be impossible. The Amendment makes it possible for the licensee and any servant or agent of his to pass through another place of work to get to the betting office.

Amendment agreed to.

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).— [Mr. Redmayne.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Orders of the Day — Third Schedule.—(PERMITS FOR PROVISION OF AMUSEMENTS WITH PRIZES.)

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, in page 35, line 24, to leave out "twelve months" and to insert "three years".

Mr. Speaker: I hope that it is for the convenience of the House also to discuss the Amendments in page 35, line 26, at end insert:
Provided that where application for the renewal of a permit is made not less than one month before the date specified as aforesaid, the permit shall not cease to be in force before the authority have made their determination on the application or the application has been withdrawn.
In page 35, line 35, at end insert:
4. The local authority shall not refuse an application for the grant or renewal of a permit under this Schedule without giving the applicant or a person acting for him an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by the authority or a committee thereof, and shall not refuse an application for the renewal of such a permit otherwise than by reason of the conditions in which amusements with prizes have been provided under the permit or the manner in which those amusements have been conducted.
In page 36, line 7, after "refusal", insert:
and furnish him with a written statement of the grounds thereof ".
In page 36, line 21, after "refusal", insert:
and furnish him with a written statement of the ground thereof ".

Mr. Vosper: Yes, I hope that that will be for the convenience of the House.

Mr. Rees-Davies: On a point of order. Do I take it, Mr. Speaker, that you will not be calling the Amendment in page 35, line 26, after "specify" to insert a new paragraph 3? If you were, might I respectfully submit that it would also be one proper to discuss with the Amendment in line 35 which, in turn, you have invited us to discuss with the Amendments in line 24, and line 26?

Mr. Speaker: No, it is not my intention to call the Amendment in the hon. Member's name in line 26.

Mr. Vosper: In Committee we had a difference of opinion about which authority should be responsible for the approval of permits for people setting up amusement arcades and fun fairs. The Royal Commission in its recommendations suggested that this should


not be a case for local justices but for the local authority. The Bill as introduced in the House followed that pattern on the ground that this, as opposed to approval of betting office licences, was an administrative matter. But in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) and the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) strongly took the view that this too should be a function for the licensing justices.
I promised to consider the matter further and to consult with the trade and with the various bodies who might be concerned with licensing. I have done that, and the Amendments in the Schedule, which go with Clause 22, are the result of those deliberations. I argued in Committee that this was an administrative function and that to ask the justices to decide whether a fun fair or amusement arcade, in a shop for example, should be approved was not a suitable job for them to do and that the local authority concerned with the social needs of the locality should have a say in the matter, as indeed they do at the moment.
As a result of my consultations, the Magistrates' Association has informed me that it does not think that this is a matter which should be transferred from the local authority to the magistrates. It is fair to say that this decision was not taken by the council of the association and therefore is still subject to confirmation. The Council has not met since our last deliberation, but the secretary of the association has supported the Government in their view that this should be the responsibility of the local authority. The local authorities have already said that they thought it was their responsibility, and the A.M.C. has, since the Committee stage, appealed most emphatically that the local authorities should have this power left to them.
I therefore adhere to the original decision which leaves the responsibility with the local authority, but being aware of the doubts and hesitations of the interested parties in this respect I have sought to introduce some safeguards into the Bill to try to allay the fears of those proprietors of amusement arcades and fun fairs who felt that they might be victimised in some way or might not

have a fair deal at the hands of the local authority. The Amendments do exactly that.
One safeguard, of course, was already available to the trade and that was that it had the right of appeal. The second safeguard finds form in the first Amendment, in line 24, which extends the period of permits from twelve months to three years. This was a point which we discussed in Committee. My hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department advised the Committee to reject it, but on reconsideration I think that it would be fair to extend the twelve months to three years.
The second Amendment provides that where the
… application for the renewal of a permit is made not less than one month before the date specified … the permit shall not cease to be in force before the authority have made their determination …
It provides for any time lag in the proceedings.
The third point, which finds itself in the Amendment to line 35, is that the applicant has the right to appear in person before the local authority before his application is rejected. Also in that Amendment is the further point that the local authority shall not refuse the application for reasons other than the conditions under which amusements and prizes have been provided—in other words, they shall not refuse an application because they think that the big dipper is a blot on the landscape. Reasons in writing must be given after a local authority refuses an application.
I realise that my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields and possibly others would still prefer this function to be performed by the licensing justices, and my hon. Friend in the Amendment which you are not calling, Mr. Speaker, sought to do that and to lay down conditions on which justices would determine applications. It would be out of order for me to explain the deficiencies of that Amendment. It would be possible but difficult to frame some conditions upon which justices could determine these particular responsibilities.
I am more than ever convinced that we should, at any rate for the first period,


leave this to the local authority. The purpose here is to provide licences or permits for the major fun fairs and amusement parks which grace our seaside resorts and Battersea Park, and not to set up in coffee bars and shops similar institutions which, under this Schedule, could be approved if the licensing authority thought fit to do so.
I made the point in Committee, which I repeat, that if this power were given to licensing justices they would be bound to be more generous in this respect than the House would wish and what is the intention of the Bill. The matter should be left to the local authority, which should determine the needs of the locality that it has in mind. I reaffirm the intention to leave the matter to the local authority but to introduce those safeguards as some protection for the trades concerned.

Mr. Rees-Davies: This is the last real point in this debate, and I shall not take up much time. I thank my right hon. Friend very much for the great care which he has given to the manifold considerations coupled in these Amendments which we are considering. The first Amendment enables permits to be obtained for a reasonable period of years. The trade will welcome that and I thank him for it.
In leaving it to the local authority rather than to the justices of the peace, he has thought fit to put some grounds for guidance to the local authority in consideration of this question. Would he give in another place an opportunity to reconsider this matter by inviting either the Attorney-General or the Lord Chancellor to give their views on whether this is not a judicial rather than an administrative question? We went into this in great detail. It does depend on whether this is a judicial or an administrative issue.
I am also very glad that he has specifically incorporated what I might call the Minister of Housing and Local Government town planning grounds, and has provided that if a local authority refuses to grant a licence it must furnish a written statement of the grounds for its refusal. That will be a most important matter when the appellate tribunal, which will be a judicial tribunal— namely, quarter sessions—has to consider the question whether there has been a proper refusal. I was afraid that even if an applicant had an opportunity

to appear before a local authority, either personally or through somebody appointed on his behalf, if the application were dismissed out of hand with no reasons given the applicant would have no protection.
There is one matter which has still not been included in the series of Amendments. Although it cannot be dealt with here it should be dealt with in another place. When a local authority considers the application it will be given guidance as to the applicant's right of appearance, the necessity to provide a statement of the reasons for refusal, and also the fact that an application shall not be refused other than in respect of
 the conditions in which amusements with prizes have been provided under the permits or the manner in which those amusements have been conducted,
but no guidance will be given to the appellate tribunal. Therefore, quarter sessions will be given no guidance as to the considerations which should weigh with it in relation to the granting or refusal of an application. Before putting down my Amendment I spoke to the chairman of a quarter sessions, who said, "I hope that you will not make us responsible for deciding whether or not we should grant a permit without giving us any guidance as to the considerations which should weigh with us".
I submit that this is a matter for the Lord Chancellor's Department. When persons appear before a town planning officer, appointed by the Ministry, he makes a report to his Minister stating the reasons for the refusal of planning permission. The Minister remains an administrative officer. He is merely giving the decision of his Ministry. He is not compelled to do anything more than give the reasons for refusal. No legal guidance is given to him about the reasons for refusal. But if this is to be an administrative decision the proper person to appeal to is the Home Secretary.
We should be logical in this matter. I know that this House detests lawyers and dislikes their sense of logic, but this is either an administrative decision or a judicial one. If, after due and careful consideration, the Government have decided that it is administrative, so be it; I will pack up and keep quiet. But if, on the other hand, they regard it as


judicial, the appeal should go to the appropriate tribunal. We cannot have a mixed tribunal, consisting first of a local authority and then quarter sessions. That is wrong.
It is not fair to compare the situation with the case of the licensing justices at the brewster sessions, who carry out an administrative function. Although they are appointed administratively they seek to carry out their function judicially. They regard their work in this connection as judicial. This is no time for me to say more than that the matter should be considered again, but I take the view that this is probably a judicial matter. If I am wrong, the right person to reconsider the decision is the Home Secretary. If, in the end, it is to be a kind of mixed marriage between local authorities and quarter sessions, some guidance will have to be incorporated in the Bill in order to give chairmen of quarter sessions some guidance as to the considerations which they must bear in mind. Broadly speaking, the fitness of the applicant, and other grounds contained as guidance to the local authority, would be the sort of guidance which we ought to give to the appellate committee in determining whether the permit should be granted or not.
10.15 p.m.
I may add that a great many thousands of pounds are involved in whether these permits are or are not granted. This is one of my reasons why I prefer to bring it into a judicial rather than an administrative atmosphere. We know that all our local authorities are not perhaps quite so good as one another, or even as independent as they might be, because they vary in different areas, and they vary from year to year, whereas the bench goes on unaffected. For these reasons, I hope that the matter will be further considered, and particularly the question of the appeal and of guidance to the committee on appeal.

Mr. Ede: I join with the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) in his disappointment that what we pressed on the Government during the Committee stage has not been granted.
I am not at all impressed by the fact that the Magistrates' Association said that it did not want this job. It would do it a great deal of good if on occasions it condescended to consider the feelings

of men of low estate and to understand how some of the people coming before magistrates actually live. I have for long drawn a sharp distinction in my own mind between those magistrates who think for themselves and those who put their thinking out to the Magistrates' Association. I am not surprised that the Magistrates' Association came recently to the view which it has expressed.
I object to this matter being dealt with by the local authorities, because I want to keep all this kind of thing out of local politics. I do not think that there should be an issue at a local government election as to whether the council should grant permits in this kind of case, or as to whether it has rightly considered the applications that were made during the past year. These are not things with which the local sanitary authorities ought to concern themselves. They are eminently matters to be judged judicially, and the magistrates are the right people to conduct any inquiries that might be necessary before a licence is granted.
I hope that in another place, where judges generally stand up for things being settled in court rather than by local authorities or administrative tribunals, they will on this occasion exercise that point of view in a good cause as they have so often done in the past in bad causes.

Mr. Vosper: I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), who I know does not like this decision, for his approval of the Amendment which we put on the Order Paper. Of course, my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor will have a great interest in this Bill when it goes to another place, and this point will not escape him. So far as the point about appeal is concerned, I see the force in that argument, and should like to look at it further.
I would say to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that when I said that the Magistrates' Association did not want this, I said it because I had promised to ask its opinion, but the decision to retain it as an administrative function is taken for reasons other than that. It is merely a subsidiary reason which I thought I ought to put before the Committee.

Mr. Ede: It is only an excuse, not a reason.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 35 line 26 at end insert:
Provided that where application for the renewal of a permit is made not less than one month before the date specified as aforesaid, the permit shall not cease to be in force before the authority have made their determination on the application or the application has been withdrawn.—[Mr. Vosper.]

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, in page 35, line 34 after "Act". to insert:
then, unless the premises were so used without any planning permission required in that behalf under the Town and Country Planning Acts, 1947 to 1959, or the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts, 1947 to 1959".
This is a very small point. Under paragraph 3 of the Third Schedule a permit is to be granted as of right in respect of premises used for the purpose during the period of twelve months ending with the date of the coming into force of the Schedule, which is expected to be later this year. It is possible that under the Schedule as drafted a fun fair which started to operate this spring or summer could benefit by the Schedule. That would not be the desire of the House, and these words make it quite clear that it will be excluded.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 35, line 35, at end insert:
4. The local authority shall not refuse an application for the grant or renewal of a permit under this Schedule without giving the applicant or a person acting for him an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by the authority or a committee thereof, and shall not refuse an application for the renewal of such a permit otherwise than by reason of the conditions in which amusements with prizes have been provided under the permit or the manner in which those amusements have been conducted.

In page 36, line 7, after "refusal", insert:
and furnish him with a written statement of the grounds thereof ".

In page 36, line 21, after "refusal", insert:
and furnish him with a written statement of the grounds thereof ".—[Mr. Vosper.]

Orders of the Day — Fourth Schedule.—(CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS.)

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, in page 38, line 5, at the end to insert:
9. In section eleven of the Gaming Act, 1845 (which provides in respect of the keeping of a public billiard table without a licence and of

the failure to put and keep up a notice that premises are licensed for billiards penalties by reference to the penalties for keeping a common gaming-house)—

(a) for the words " and also " there shall be substituted the words " shall be liable to the penalties provided by paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (3) of section twenty-five of the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960"; and
(b) for the words from "to be proceeded against" onwards there shall be substituted the words " on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds "


I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) for enabling us to discover this rather small point which came to light when we were doing researches on an Amendment in his name which the House has already accepted. It makes an Amendment to Section 11 of the Gaming Act, 1845, consequential on the repeal by Clause 15 of the common law relating to common gaming houses. As a result of the changes we have made in the law, the penalty for an offence dealt with under Section 11 falls and it has therefore become necessary to introduce new penalties. The first penalty is that under Clause 25 (3) and the second penalty is of £10. This exactly replaces the penalties which are now invalidated by the change in the law.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Sixth Schedule.—(REPEALS.)

Mr. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 41, line 26, at the end to insert:


8 &amp; 9 Viet., c. 109.
The Gaming Act, 1845.
In section thirteen, the words "and every billard room in every house specified in any victualler's licence".


In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), in whose name the Amendment was put down, I have to say that I am under the impression that it is consequential on an earlier Amendment in his name which has already been accepted. I therefore hope that this, too, will be accepted.

Mr. Vosper: That is agreed and the Government accept this consequential Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

INDECENCY WITH CHILDREN BILL [Lords]

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Orders of the Day — Clause 1. —(INDECENT CONDUCT TOWARDS YOUNG CHILD.)

10.25 p.m.

Miss Alice Bacon: I beg to move, in page 1, line 5, after "person", insert "over the age of fourteen ".
The effect of this Amendment would be to make it impossible for anybody under the age of 14 to be considered as an offender for the purposes of this Bill. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary has not seen fit to put down a similar Amendment himself. During the Committee stage proceedings when I moved exactly the same Amendment, every speech from both sides of the Committee, with the exception of the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman, was in favour of my Amendment. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner), the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) and the hon. Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan), speaking from the Government benches, supported the Amendment.
The only point on which they disagreed with it was that they thought it did not go far enough. Some hon. Members wished me to change the age from 14 to 16. It was clear that had the right hon. Gentleman not promised to look at the matter again before Report stage the Committee would have accepted my Amendment. It was only because the Joint Under-Secretary gave an undertaking that he would look at the matter that several of the hon. Members opposite decided to vote with him and not for my Amendment.
As I have said, the purpose of the Amendment is to make it impossible for anyone under 14 to be charged with an offence under the provisions of this Bill. At present the age of criminal responsibility is 8 and therefore when the Bill refers to any person, it means in effect that any person over the age of 8 can be charged with a sexual offence of this nature. I know perfectly well—the right hon. Gentleman has said this on two occasions—that any person under the age

of 14 would be dealt with by a juvenile court and would be deemed to be in need of care and protection. But surely a great deal of harm would be done to a child between the ages of 8 and 14 merely by having been hauled before a juvenile court and charged with an offence of this nature.
It has also been assumed that it is unlikely that anyone would bring a child under the age of 14 before the juvenile court and charge them with this offence. But I do not think that is so very unlikely when we bear in mind that one of my hon. Friends has at the present time a Bill before the House designed to make it impossible for young children of the age of 14 to be put in prison. Only recently we had a case of a girl of 14 who was put in Holloway Gaol merely because she played truant from school, so I do not think we consider for a moment the possibility that nobody would be likely to bring a child before the juvenile court and charge him with this offence.
I believe that since gross indecency for the purposes of this Bill includes also indecent exposure, it is quite possible that a child under the age of 14 could commit an offence without realising that an offence was being committed. During the Committee stage the right hon. Gentleman said that to put the age of 14 in the Bill would bring this offence out of line with other offences. But surely an offence of this kind, if it can be called an offence when we consider children under the age of 14, is not the same as stealing or breaking windows or hooliganism or things of that kind. During the Committee stage the right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that the Ingleby Committee is considering the whole question of the treatment of juvenile offenders.
10.30 p.m.
That being so, it would not be right for us to anticipate the Committee's findings in this way. But I believe that this House should not neglect to do something that it believes to be right because of the possible findings of a Committee which has not yet reported. We do not know when the Ingleby Committee is likely to report. Surely even after the Ingleby Committee has presented its report to this House, it is


by no means certain that the Government will take any speedy action to implement the recommendations of that Committee.
There is usually quite a long period of time between a Committee reporting and action being taken. To refer to one with which we have been dealing during the last few months, we had a Private Member's Bill on the recommendations of the Gowers Committee. The Gowers Committee reported in 1949. We see there that there can be some considerable delay between a Committee reporting and Government action being taken.
I hope that on this occasion the right hon. Gentleman will decide to accept this Amendment. As I had said, he was urged to do so by every hon. Member on his side of the Committee. It would be abhorrent to all hon. Members if we were to pass a law whereby children between the ages of 8 and 14 could be brought before the courts for offences committed under this Bill. As I said in Committee, I was urged to plead for the age to be increased to 16, but I believe there is a very good case to insert the age of 14.
It would be a great pity if this excellent little Bill were spoilt by making it possible for very young people-children between the ages of 8 and 14— to be brought before the juvenile courts. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment and thereby improve his own Bill.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dennis Vosper): I am glad that the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) has tabled this Amendment on Report, because when we discussed it in Committee I was convinced, apart from any advice that I had been given, that I was right and the Committee were wrong. Yet it was quite clear, as the hon. Lady said, that I was in the minority, and at the end of the Committee proceedings I desired to reconsider the matter to make certain that I was right and that those who opposed me were possibly not considering the full implications of the Amendment. I have done that at great length. Had I found that I was wrong, I would have come to the House myself on Report and tabled an Amendment on the lines of the hon. Lady's Amendment.
I should like to correct one misapprehension which may arise from what the hon. Lady said. She talked about children going to prison, rather suggesting that under the Bill children under the age of 14 could be committed to prison. I do not think she meant that because she knows that no child under that age can be committed to prison. Children of the age of 14 can be received in prison on remand, which relates to the case she has in mind. Any children dealt with under this Bill, if there are such children, will be dealt with by the juvenile courts in the normal manner.
This Amendment, and indeed the Bill, arises out of the first Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee. Had that Committee decided that this was the wrong age, it would have made a recommendation to this effect. In fact, it did not do so. That is the first point I want to make. The Clause to which the Amendment is applied follows exactly the draft clause attached to the Criminal Law Revision Committee's Report. All hon. Members are concerned that young people shall be kept out of the courts, and that is genuinely our mutual desire.
As the House knows, the law at present is that no child under the age of 8—that being the age of criminal responsibility—can be prosecuted for this or any other offence. The age group with which the hon. Lady is concerned is 8-14, and those children cannot be convicted and, therefore, are unlikely to be prosecuted unless there is evidence that he or she knew that he or she was doing wrong.
There are many offences which children commit upon one another and for which it is not appropriate that they should be punished, but it is not on that account thought necessary to exempt them from the operation of the law. Therefore, if one accepted the Amendment which the hon. Lady proposes, for the first time a person under the age of 14 would be totally exempt from the operation of the law, and she would be introducing an entirely new principle, that a person under 14 should never be prosecuted however well aware he or she was that he or she was doing wrong.
The hon. Lady says, "I accept that for many offences, non-sexual offences possibly, the child under 14 should be


liable to prosecution, but not for this sexual offence." I understand that to be her argument. But—this is the point I made in Committee—there are other sexual offences for which children under the age of 14 are at present liable to prosecution, and the one I instanced in Committee was that of indecent assault. There were no fewer that 250 children under the age of 14 prosecuted on this account in 1958. I argued then, and I do so now, that it would be illogical to separate this offence, which is of gross indecency or incitement to indecency, from indecent assault, where the person under 14 is liable to prosecution. If the hon. Lady and her supporters are really logical, they should be arguing that all sexual offences should be exempt so far as those under 14 are concerned. She has not so far argued in that direction.
The hon. Lady's hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle), who is not here tonight, said "Let us make a start somewhere. We think it is all wrong, but here we have a Bill before the Committee. Let us start by making it impossible to prosecute a person under the age of 14, and then perhaps at some later stage one can extend it to other offences." The argument that I would put against that is that if the Criminal Law Revision Committee had thought that the right course it would have recommended it. I very much doubt, if we are going to make a start, whether this is the right offence and whether indecent assault is not the right offence on which one should start to exempt those under 14, if indeed it is right to make this exemption.
The third point which influenced my coming to the House on Report feeling that I was right concerns the Ingleby Committee. The hon. Lady said on the Committee stage that I said that one should not make any changes of this nature, apart from any other argument, while the Ingleby Committee was considering the subject of juvenile delinquency. I have looked more closely into this, and the Ingleby Committee has not yet made any definite recommendations. It has got to the stage of drafting its Report, and we shall see it within the next few months.
It is common knowledge that the Ingleby Committee has received

evidence on the age of criminal responsibility. It is as near certain as anything can be that it will make a recommendation, but what it will be I do not know. However, if we wrote into the Bill what is, in fact, a new age of criminal responsibility, that would be embarrassing to the Committee at this stage of its deliberations. Surely the first thing is to see what age it recommends, if it recommends any change in the age of criminal responsibility, and see whether it takes care of the point we are considering here. Even if the Committee makes such a change, one has to consider the implications on other sexual offences and not make this change in isolation.
Therefore, having considered it, I think I was perfectly right during the Committee stage in saying that one should not make the change for one particular offence, and one should certainly not make it in advance of the Ingleby Committee's recommendations, particularly at this stage of its deliberations. The hon. Lady and her hon. Friends may say that weeks and months are going by before any action is taken. But I pointed out to the Committee when we were discussing the matter that no child under the age of 14 has ever been prosecuted for this particular offence. That is not quite right, because they could not be prosecuted. No offender under the age of 14 has ever been known to the authorities in relation to this offence. It is most unlikely, therefore, that in the next six or nine months, between now and the conclusion of the Report, any under 14-year-old offender is going to be called before the court.
The point is therefore largely academic. The hon. Lady says that it makes her case; I feel that it makes mine, because if we make the change now it will probably not affect any child under 14 years of age, but it will have restrictions on the existing law and may embarrass the Ingleby Committee. Therefore, I think that the House, while sympathising with the point made—because this is an important matter and I am particularly interested in young people—would be wrong to accept the Amendment at this stage.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: It seems to me that if we are to wait until the Ingleby Committee reports


—it may report, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, in six, seven, eight or nine months—there is no guarantee, of course, that the recommendations of that Committee will be written into the law for one, two, three or four years, or for a very long time.
We have many instances of Committees reporting and of nothing being done for years on end. In the meantime, these children will be left without any provision such as that proposed in the Amendment. Therefore, I do not believe that we should completely accept the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that it would be better to wait until the Ingleby Committee reports.
On the other hand, the argument that no child has ever been charged or is likely to be charged seems not to be a very good reason why we should not write this Amendment into the Bill, which is making some changes in the existing law, because, again, we have no guarantee that somebody somewhere, because this Bill has now been introduced, will not bring a case against a child of under 14 years of age and that the child will not be brought before the court.
It seems to me that my hon. Friend's argument is a good argument that, while we are dealing with this excellent little Bill which deals with a problem that is concerning many people, we have the chance at any rate to take a lead on what quite evidently the right hon. Gentleman believes is necessary, that children of tender ages should not be liable to be brought before the court at all. Therefore, I support the Amendment.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I should be very disposed to support my right hon. Friend and what he said about the Ingleby Committee were it not for the knowledge that in my experience there always is a Committee sitting to consider matters which are the subject of legislative proposals in the House and in many cases the Reports have not been seen for several years. I have seen action delayed for an unconscionably long time while Committees deliberated and while their Reports were debated in the House.
I have no illusions about the matter— that in a debate upon this Amendment on the conclusion of the Report stage of a Bill brought from the Lords we

are not going to persuade the Government to change their mind now and accept the Amendment. Therefore, I think that no harm of any kind can come of giving a little guidance to the Ingleby Committee.
My right hon. Friend said that no child under the age of 14 had, in fact, ever been prosecuted for this offence or brought before a court.

Mr. Vosper: I corrected myself. I said it could not be so because no such case had ever been known to the authorities in relation to this offence.

Mr. Bell: I was in the process of correcting myself when my right hon. Friend rose. I was about to say "or has been known to the authorities." I think that that is largely because occurrences which are not criminal offences are very often not brought to the notice of the police. I was about to say that I would suspect that when this Bill becomes law in its present form we shall find that no prosecutions will, in practice, take place under it because people will have more sense. It is not always a satisfactory thing, however, to allow absurdities in the law to be smoothed over by sensible administrative discretion by the police not prosecuting because they think it would be absurd to do so. It is, of course, not imagined that there have been no instances of gross indecency between children under the age of 14. Of course, there have, but they have not come to the attention of the police and inevitably the children concerned have not been prosecuted.
10.45 p.m.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend that this sort of offence is not the kind that Parliament ought to create, by legislation, between young children. We are creating a new offence by this Bill, there is no question about that. The question now before us is, are we now to create such a new offence between children of tender years? I think that every hon. Member would answer "no" were it not for the argument my right hon. Friend has put that the Ingleby Committee may make some general recommendation about the age of criminal responsibility. Equally, of course, it may not, because the matters put to that Committee are predominantly other matters. It has the whole problem of juvenile delinquency


on its plate and that is a very big problem. What concerns us is how to reduce the appalling problem of juvenile delinquency, not the age at which that begins, because that age is not 9 or 10 but very much older than that.
We may find that we have brought this offence into existence for these children and that in some parts of the country someone will not exercise the discretion and children will be charged with the offence. I have known many Acts go through when people have said that no one would be so foolish as to apply them in a certain way. We know that children up to the age of 14 years are required to go to school all through the day, yet in many cases they do not and local education offices do not prosecute them, yet sometimes prosecutions are taken. Sometimes Parliament passes a reasonable law, but people exercise an unreasonable discretion.
It may be too late, but I ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether the Amendment ought not to be made, on the understanding that it is his intention that no child of this age should be prosecuted for this offence. If that is the intention, why not put it in the Bill and deal with it explicitly?

Miss Bacon: I found the reply of the right hon. Gentleman very disappointing. As the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) said, there is always some Committee sitting and that is used as an excuse for not doing anything. That is particularly true of the Home Office at the present time. I have lost count of the Committees which have been set up by the Home Secretary in the last few months and which are now considering some aspect of many things with which we should like to deal.
The reply was disappointing. The right hon. Gentleman again instanced the offence of indecent assault and said that we should surely start with that offence rather than this. I should have thought it should be entirely the other way round. Someone under the age of 14 who commits an indecent assault does so with the knowledge that he is doing wrong. I believe that many of the young people who might be brought before the courts and charged with offences of indecency will not have any knowledge that they are doing wrong.
The right hon. Gentleman repeated what he said in Committee, that no one under the age of 14 had been known to commit this offence; but it has not been an offence up to now, so they will not have been known, but that is not to say that in future children will not be hauled before the courts on this offence.
I do not think that there is any validity in the argument that since they will not be prosecuted but only brought before the juvenile court as in need of care and protection, no harm will be done. I think that the whole idea of bringing children before a juvenile court on charges of this kind will do them harm for many years and probably throughout their lives.
The right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that in Committee and again this evening every speech which has been made from both sides of the Committee and the House, with the exception of his own, has been in favour of the Amendment. I know that if he wishes to use it, he has a majority behind him and therefore the Amendment will be rejected, but I urge him even at this late stage to bear in mind the fact that he is a lone voice among all other voices on both sides of the House.

Mr. Vosper: That is possibly because I have more knowledge of the Ingleby Committee's deliberations than anyone else in the House, and that to me is the decisive argument against accepting the Amendment, strong as the other arguments may be.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) and the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) said that there are always Committees sitting. That can be said of the Ingleby Committee, which was appointed by my right hon. Friend's predecessor and which has been sitting for many years, but it has reached the stage of drafting and I hope that we shall see its Report very soon. Much of my right hon. Friend's legislation for young offenders must be determined in the light of the Ingleby Committee's recommendations, and it is therefore a matter of great urgency that we receive the Report as soon as possible. I have reason to believe that the Committee will have something to say on this issue, and to accept the


Amendment at this stage would be embarrassing.
My hon. Friend referred to the fact that none under the age of 14 has been reported as committing what is to be this offence, adding that in the past it has not been an offence. But since the offence first came to light in the case of Fairclough v. Whipp, 42 people have been discovered who would otherwise have been prosecuted; the youngest of those was 17 and the oldest 79. There is therefore some force in saying that no offenders under this age have been known to the authorities.
I said in Committee, and I did not elaborate tonight, that every effort would be made to deal with such a person before the juvenile court by way of care or protection proceedings. There may be cases which could not be dealt with in that way because of the attitude of the parents and therefore some prosecutions would have to be undertaken, but I come back to the fact that to accept the Amendment would be illogical in view of the state of the existing law, and most certainly at this stage of the Ingleby Committee it would be embarrassing to the Committee. I therefore continue to oppose it.

Amendment negatived.

Bill read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (PLOUGHING GRANTS)

10.54 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): I beg to move,
That the Ploughing Grants Scheme, 1960, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th April, be approved.
You will have observed, Mr. Speaker, that there is a similar Scheme relating to Scotland and I think it will be convenient for the two to be taken together.

Mr. Speaker: That is convenient.

Mr. Godber: Before I deal with the reasons for making the Scheme this year the House may wish me to give very shortly a summary of the outcome for the past year. Expenditure during the financial year ended 31st March was £9·37 million compared with £9·19 million the year before. Ploughings were affected by the prolonged drought, though to a lesser extent than in the previous year when the wet season caused a marked fall. There is always a time lag between ploughing and application for grant and that, coupled with the fact that the financial and ploughing grant years do not coincide, means that expenditure in any financial year does not entirely reflect the trend of ploughing under a particular Scheme.
There has been a marked improvement since the autumn. Ploughings under the 1959–60 Scheme are expected to reach 1,250,000 acres, which is almost as high as in 1957–58. Expenditure in the current financial year is expected to approach the £10 million mark once more. Despite a setback due to abnormal seasons—one wet and the other dry —the Scheme continues to operate at a high level.
I am aware that there has been criticism of the Scheme in some quarters, though it has been equally strongly defended in others as being the foundation of healthy ley farming. It is said that the Scheme is too rigid and encourages the ploughing up of leys before their productive cycle has reached its peak; alternatively that there is no need to go on encouraging rotational farming at all.
Following the criticism in the Caine Report that too little statistical information was available on the distribution of ploughing grants, we have begun to assemble more detailed information which will help us to assess their effects. We have made an analysis of claims received in England and Wales under the current Scheme. I find that nearly 40 per cent. of the grass ploughed up is five to seven years old and over. The next figure is even more significant— over 40 per cent. of it is ten years old or more.
That is something which is quite striking, but I should point out that these returns cover payments made in the period October last to March this year only, and therefore include a large proportion of autumn ploughings. The distribution for a full year could, of course, be somewhat different, but we can reasonably say that the Scheme is in no way rigid in its effects.
Though there has been a very marked increase in total ploughings since 1955, farmers in general do not plough up their leys regularly every three or four years simply in order to get the grant. For some it may be entirely the correct thing from the husbandry point of view to plough up after this length of time, and the four-year ley is, I understand, the rule in Scotland, where they practice a regular rotation of crops and grass. The qualifying period under the Scheme operates as it was intended to do by providing that the minimum age of grassland ploughed under the Scheme and for which we pay grant, is three years, and that is all.
I have brought out these points because on previous occasions there has been criticism, and the hon. Member who speaks so regularly on behalf of Scotland on this subject brings out this point. As far as England and Wales are concerned, at any rate, it is quite clear that quite a lot of grass brought into use in this way has been grass for a considerable period.
As to whether we have done enough to encourage rotational farming, there has been an increase of 1 million acres of rotational grass in the United Kingdom since the grants were re-introduced in 1952, of which about 800,000 acres is in England and Wales. But there is still

some way to go and I would refer the House to the statement in this year's Annual Review White Paper, in which it is said that there should be, within the framework of general policy,
continuing emphasis on the better production and use of grass as a means towards reducing costs of production. In general, this will call for the maintenance or increase of the area of rotation grass.
In this, ploughing grants play a useful part. They make a direct contribution to good husbandry and are an integral part of the total assistance available to farmers. As I have said before, they are paid at an early stage of the production cycle which is of particular assistance to the smaller farmer and they are, in fact, closely linked with the operation of the Small Farmer Scheme, in which we put additional sums for ploughing-up. This linking of the two gives an incentive to the improvement of so many of these small farms.
At present, roughly half the applications are in respect of farms of less than 100 acres and two-thirds in respect of farms of less than 150 acres. For the rest, the ploughing grant is in the nature of a general production grant aimed at encouraging farming practices which are in themselves desirable and we think it right and proper that the grants should be paid for work carried out, wherever this is done.
In conclusion, I should like to say something about the administration of the Scheme. Ploughing grants are subject to careful check against previous records, and a considerable proportion of claims in England and Wales are subject to field inspection. But one cannot dismiss the possibility of incorrect and sometimes fraudulent claims, and we have arranged to check all applications received under the current Scheme against cereal deficiency payments for four previous years, and we shall do this on a comprehensive basis for the future.
I am sure that the House will appreciate that this is a considerable operation, since the records available have been devised primarily to serve the administrative purposes of either Scheme but not of both together, and they must now be married up. We think that this will prove a valuable check, however, and will in addition take into the joint scrutiny applications for field husbandry or ploughing grants under the Small


Farmer Scheme. This will help to give us a very close check on any claims which might be mistaken or fraudulent, and it is a valuable safeguard. For that reason I thought it right to bring it to the notice of the House. I do not think there is any need to say more, because these Schemes are well known. I commend them to the House.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: We thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for his explanation of the purposes of the Scheme. We have noted that he has been a little more informative on this occasion than he—or his predecessor—has been in the past, and we are happy to note that he is rather on the defensive. He obviously feels that there is some legitimate and just criticism of the Scheme in present circumstances.
What I regret is that in justifying the Scheme he said no more than that there is some way to go. We want a better explanation of the continuance of the Scheme than that. This is an important Scheme, involving the expenditure of over £9 million. In fact, since the 1952 Act £61 million has been spent in this way. It is, therefore, important that the Scheme should receive the attention of the House. It is not sufficient merely to say, "We are going to spend £9 million or £10 million, because we have some way to go." Judging the matter in the light of such knowledge as we possess, it would seem that there is not a strong case for the continuance of the Scheme. This year the Government have cut the Price Review award by £9 million, and we are discussing a similar amount here. The purpose of the cuts, as I understand it, is to provide a disincentive, and yet, without any further consideration than that we have some way to go, we are asked to agree to the continuance of the Scheme.
We would all recognise the justification for the introduction of ploughing grants, and even possibly for their rein-troduction, but we are now considering the question of their continuance. No guidance as to the future has been given by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary or the Government. We are faced with the position that faced the Caine Committee; it is very difficult to justify the continuance of these grants, but we must

recognise that their discontinuance would be a disincentive. That means no more than that there is an obligation on the Government to consider agricultural policy. We cannot get an answer to this. I hope that we will have an opportunity to discuss this subject more broadly later on.
To deal with the points upon which the Parliamentary Secretary has been defensive; he told us that there has been a careful check, but we know quite well that his Ministry never thought of having a check until the Public Accounts Committee paid attention to the administration of these grants and the Comptroller and Auditor General made his Report.
What is the extent of the losses? Are they £30,000, £40,000, £50,000 or £100,000? There are hon. Members opposite who profess to take an interest in the expenditure of public money. Why are they not with us tonight? This is a matter which the Public Accounts Committee called to our attention.
What struck me as disturbing was that I gathered that the hon. Gentleman's Ministry does not have a computer. It is very revealing when a Ministry dealing with the sort of matters with which the hon. Gentleman's Ministry has to deal is not able to avoid the stigmatism of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
I do not want to make heavy weather of this. I say at once that in the administration of grants such as these there are bound to be mistakes, but what strikes me as significant is that apparently the Ministry never thought of having a check and was not in a position to have a check in England. Now it has been said that it is to set up the machinery for a pilot check. That is an extraordinary way in which to administer public funds.
It also emphasises the lack of conscious purpose behind the administration of these grants. If there had been a sense of responsibility, there would have been no need for the Comptroller and Auditor General to call the Ministry's attention to the need for some check. Although we escaped it tonight, generally when we talk about ploughing grants, all we get is some sort of jovial colloquialism about the grants helping to push the plough round the farm. We


are concerned with whether the expenditure of £60 million since 1952 has been justified.
As I have emphasised before, this is not solely a matter for the taxpayer. It is also a matter for the farmer, because the money comes out of the Price Review award and it makes it more difficult for the Government to pursue the policy which they profess to pursue to encourage economic production.
No one would dispute the purpose of the initial introduction of a production grant such as this, but what we expect to know is what has been the effect of this expenditure of public money. Just as we did not know that the Government did not have any proper supervision of the expenditure of this money until we got reports from the Public Accounts Committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General, so we now learn that the Government did not have the slightest idea of what was happening as a result of that expenditure.
It is fantastic that the Government themselves should set up the Caine Committee and that the Caine Committee should report in black and white that:
There is a lack of information available as to the beneficiaries under the scheme. There is no indication of the extent to which the grants are going to the smaller farmer or to the grassland farmer; nor does the information enable us to say how many individual farmers are involved in the 100,000 applications for grant made each year. It is, therefore, difficult to arrive at a precise picture of the effect of these grants.
I wonder what would be said about a nationalised corporation which was stigmatised in this way by a committee which had been set up to inquire into its affairs.
Right throughout the Report of the Caine Committee runs the theme that there is not sufficiently adequate information about the effect of these grants or indeed who is benefiting from them. The Parliamentary Secretary has given us some information. He was criticised on the last occasion when we discussed these grants. Surely it is very disturbing that after the Caine Committee has reported we have still no completely effective Government action following on that Report. The best the Parliamentary Secretary can do is to tell the House that he has begun to assemble some detailed information.
It goes further than that because the Caine Committee made some wide recommendations. Put in a kernel it said that we have to pay attention to management. If we are devoting these public moneys to the support of this industry we must also devote our energies to research. What progress have we made? The other day the Minister was kind enough to tell me that the question of research was being referred to the A.R.Cs to report on what steps should be taken about research. Is this a responsible attitude?
We are in difficulties, as we always are when we discuss these production grants, because we recognise that they are an inherent part of the Price Review. It would not be open to us to divide against the present Scheme, but I ask the Government for an assurance that this grant will be carefully reviewed within the next twelve months. It will not do to be forced into a position of not being able to justify such a grant as this after it has been in operation for a good number of years. If we consider this grant in isolation and then turn to the Price Review White Paper to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred, we find that the two things do not match at all.
We are disturbed about the fact that the Government are depressing agriculture by the views they express about it. They call for economic production without knowing what that means, but at the same time they are gripped with this inertia. As I have said before, I can see consolation to the Treasury by continuing such grants as this because they are not liable to big swings in the support which goes to individual commodities. For that bureaucratic reason a grant continuing year after year is considered significant and important to agriculture. It seems to us—and the Parliamentary Secretary has said nothing to disabuse our minds on the subject—that the position is that we are paying farmers for doing something which they would do anyway. Nowadays any progressive, intelligent farmer would do this.

Mr. Godber: The hon. Gentleman is advancing an interesting argument, but would not he agree that the figures which I gave refute what he has just said? I gave figures which showed that a large number of these grants had been


continued for a number of years. The whole basis of the argument of himself and his hon. Friends is that this is a normal procedure. I have tried to show on the evidence, whatever the hon. Gentleman has said about previous years that this could not be normal procedure in this long period.

Mr. Willey: The Parliamentary Secretary himself has said that it is an incomplete picture, which we accept, and we must not draw conclusions from it. So I ask the Government to accept the same advice themselves.
Secondly, to say this is, in a way, a reflection on the incentives provided in the Scheme and it is not answering the case I put forward. We are giving a payment to farmers to carry out normal good husbandry. There may be a case for making advance payments, but that is entirely a different matter.
These are the questions I would ask the Government to consider, but I beg and pray of them not to come to the House next year merely to continue the Scheme without further thought. I hope they will seriously consider this and will realise that this is not a matter only of support for agriculture but is of concern to the farmer because it comes out of the over-all February Price Review award.

11.16 p.m.

Mr. John Morris: In a country of high rainfall it is absolutely vital that we should have a policy based on the best possible use being made of our grassland. As has already been said, the fact that this grant has been paid in the past is no argument for the continuation of this system. We should have a reason for its continuation and there should be some indication of how long the system is to continue and whether it is to be an annual procedure, with the Minister coming to the House every year.
The original purpose of these grants was to increase the nation's food supply when there was a shortage. Now I gather the reason is to utilise our national asset of grass to the full to reduce the cost of production. Efficiency of production and cost are today of paramount importance.
I would take the following points in the Scheme: so far as the three-year period is concerned, is that the best period? It may well be that in the

present system of farming the Government are falling between two stools. There is today the popularity of the short-term ley, especially in Wales, my own country. The short ley is becoming increasingly popular, and the man who practises it gets nothing from the Scheme. Then there is the longer period medium ley, and if that is well managed there is an incentive in the Scheme to cut the period. There is, therefore, a tendency because of the rigidity of the Scheme for the Government to fall between two stools.
Again, where a ley has not taken properly there is obviously a tendency, where it has gone a number of years and has one more to go, for the farmer to say: "I will wait another year and qualify for the grant." That is an inherent difficulty in the present Scheme, and where leys have not taken properly there should be a procedure for the A.A.Cs. or some other independent body to examine it and to certify that, because of the shorter period, the farmer should also qualify for grant.
One of the criticisms of the present Scheme is that it is too rigid. I welcome the figures which have been given, but suspect that the Minister has begun to assemble figures as a result of the criticisms already mentioned by my hon. Friend, the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and mentioned in Paragraph 99 of the Caine Report. I sincerely hope that the Minister can publish more figures as to the working of the Scheme. A great deal of public money is involved and we should be able to know whether the country is getting the best possible value for the £9 million that is being spent.
I also welcome the figures given as to whom the grant goes. We should have known these years ago. This grant has been in operation for many years now. Why was the information not given earlier? I hope that the Minister by some sampling technique or in some other way can give us as broad and comprehensive a picture as possible of the workings of the Scheme.
One of the objectives of the last Price Review is the maintenance and increase of areas of rotation grass. I have checked the figures for Wales, and the latest figures available are contained in the Digest of Welsh Statistics published in


May, 1959. The last available year mentioned is 1958. In 1958 £770,000 was paid out in Wales. That has meant a decrease of 12,000 acres—10 per cent. less in 1958 than in 1957 and an even larger decrease over 1956. The Minister can argue till the cows come home about the variations of the weather, but certainly in 1958 there was a considerable decrease in Wales over the two preceding years. I should like to know something about the working of the Scheme as applied to Wales, and what prophecy the Minister can make about the operation of the Scheme in 1960.
As to the payment of the £12 grant, the date of 1946 has been rigid for many years. In 1957 it was brought forward from a period dating back to 1939. If the year 1946 was deemed to be the proper period in 1957 for the payment of the £12 grant, surely there should be some alteration in the date of 1946 three years later. It has been argued in the past that there should be some alteration to the provision whereby abnormally high expenditure should be incurred before one is entitled to the £12 grant. However, I am content to leave that as it is. But if the acid test is expenditure, surely there should be some variation in respect of the small man. Where a man is able to plough hundreds of acres of land and qualifies for the grant by reason of the abnormally high expenditure, his expenditure is pro rata lower per acre than that of the small man who has to hire machinery. In my submission, there should be a variation of this £12 grant for the small man.
The Parliamentary Secretary said last year, in the debate on the Ploughing Grants Scheme:
We propose … to look at the operation of the higher rate of grant to see whether its administration could be made somewhat more flexible since we entirely agree with the Caine Committee that there remains a great deal of old pasture which would benefit by being ploughed up and put into a rotation."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1959; Vol. 605, c. 486.]
I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary could comment on the results after looking into the administration of this £12 grant.
I wish to comment on paragraph 11 of the Scheme which relates to the power of the Minister to withhold payment of

the grant. At the moment the agricultural executive committee is the organ of the Minister in determining whether a grant should be withheld or reduced.
The Parliamentary Secretary may be aware that in Wales passions have been aroused over the last three or four years between the various rival organisations in agriculture. One of the organisations is able to nominate the panel of members of the agricultural executive committee, and it is upon the recommendations of that panel that some of the members of the committee are chosen.
It is essential that justice should be done. Without commenting any further on that issue, I would say that it may well be that some farmers who may be in conflict with some of these organisations may feel that if the agricultural executive committee is the judge in their case as to whether they should be entitled to a grant or whether a grant should be withheld justice is not being done. I am not suggesting that that is the situation at all, but I suggest that there should be some independent arbitrator, much as there is in the present system of licensing bulls—there is an independent system of arbitration where a licence is refused—and some system of appeal so that justice may be seen to be done.
The payments should be made quickly. If the farmer, particularly the small farmer, is to make the best possible use of the grants, it is absolutely vital that he should be paid quickly. I should like the Minister to inquire how long it takes after claims are certified before payment is made. There have been criticisms in the past. It is not the average time of payment that I want. I should like to know the longer ranges of time taken for claims to be met and the reasons for them. The Minister might feel it appropriate to instruct his officers to make the payments as promptly as possible.
While I accept that the Scheme is a good one for the small farmer in that the grant gives him assistance as early as possible in his production cycle, I question whether the big man needs the grant, for he would have ploughed in any event—unless he is a hobby farmer, in which case the Chancellor will deal with him. I question whether the terms and administration of the Scheme are


flexible enough as between area and area, farm and farm, and ley and ley. There are rather rigid proposals in the Scheme, and there ought to be more flexibility.
There must be large areas where farmers do not take advantage of these grants for some reason. I should like to know whether the Department's officers or the N.A.A.S. are able to discover who these people are and what acreages are involved, and whether anything can be done to make people utilise these grants. In this age of rapid development, particularly with chemicals, is ploughing today as important as it is made out to be?

11.28 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I am concerned about the good name of Scotland and Scottish farmers in respect of the subsidy. I want an assurance from the tripartite Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland that it is absolutely essential to pay the money in this way, that it will be for the benefit of Scottish agriculture and that, without the grant, we should not get the benefits of healthy lands as they were expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary.
This is the tenth Scheme. It has been running since 1952, and this is one of thirteen subsidies available to Scottish farmers, apart from payments in relation to crops and other services which are made available to them by the Department. This is only one of thirteen such subsidies. It is not very long ago that a Conservative Minister went to an agricultural area in Scotland and proclaimed that subsidies were immoral. It was later discovered that he was talking about housing subsidies and not farming subsidies.
It is not so long ago, too, that the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), who is no doubt within earshot if not in his place, aroused the ire of the Scottish farmers by talking about pouring money into a leaky bucket. Therefore, all the more do I want reassuring by the Joint Under-Secretary that this is not money that is being poured into a leaky bucket.
Someone has got to raise the question of the wisdom of Government expenditure of this kind. I would have thought, after all the letters in The Times, the violent speeches and promises of long

nights on the Finance Bill and pastings from Brighton for the Exchequer from those self-proclaimed guardians of the public purse, that more representatives of the party opposite would be present and vocal tonight.
Apart from the calf subsidy, this single subsidy is probably the most expensive in Scotland at the present time. It amounts to between £2 million and £2½ million. Therefore, we are not talking about chicken feed; we are talking about something of considerable importance. There are all sorts of other ways in which we in Scotland could spend that money if it were available, but if we are persuaded that it is right that the money should be spent in this way then it is up to the Joint Under-Secretary to persuade us.
In the past I have stressed that the danger of this kind of thing is that we are paying the farmer to do what the good farmer would do any way. Like my hon. Friend, I am alarmed about the whole procedure. We get all sorts of provisos. Paragraph 13 of the Scheme talks about withholding the grant where
adequate facilities for the inspection of the land in respect of which such a grant may be made have not been given.
We get the impression of top administration. But when I read the Civil Appropriation Accounts presented to the House of Commons together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, I find in paragraph 100 something which certainly alarms me. It says:
During an examination of payments of ploughing grant"—
that is the Scheme with which we are dealing—
my officers noticed a few cases where it appeared that fields stated to have been under grass for purposes of claiming ploughing grant "—
which is one of the main qualifications—
had in fact been producing oats, barley or mixed corn as evidenced by the payment of cereal deficiency payments relating to the same fields.
Not bad, if one can get away with it. Evidently one can.
When attention was drawn to these cases the Department of Agriculture for Scotland began a complete check of ploughing grants paid under the 1958 Scheme against cereal deficiency payments.
There had been a complete check. I gather that by the time the Report was


drawn up the complete check had not been completed. The Report went on:
By November 1959 the check of some 24,000 claims had disclosed 123 cases of overpayment of ploughing grants exceeding in total £8,000,"—
and then, and this is a bright one—which it took the Comptroller and Auditor General to initiate:
as well as a case of fraud in the Department involving nearly £1,000 and erroneous cereal deficiency payments totalling about £200.
This is a serious state of affairs. First we get the impression that hitherto there has been no check. Remember this is the tenth year. Can we be given any indication as to how much money has been lost or overpaid by the Government Department over the previous years? Are we satisfied that this check against deficiency payments will be entirely satisfactory and that we have got to the full measure of the overpayment in respect of it? We must bear in mind that the Comptroller and Auditor General goes on to say in paragraph 101:
It is to be noted that this particular check can reveal incorrect claims for ploughing grant only where the crop actually taken was oats, barley or mixed corn, on which deficiency payments are made on an acreage basis; it would not operate where the crop taken was wheat, rye or any other crop.
That "any other crop" would include grants—
I am informed that in Scotland the area in which the check does not operate is relatively small since the bulk of the Scotland cereal acreage is oats and barley; but since the check is incomplete I am obliged to report that in addition to the overpayments identified by it the present Account may also include further incorrect payments of unascertained amount.
Before I give approval to this, I have to be satisfied that the administration is really efficient. Can we be given up-to-date figures as to the complete check on this matter, which I consider to be very serious indeed? Can we be assured that within the Department itself matters have been sufficiently tightened up to limit the possibility of fraud? How was it that fraud to the extent of £1,000 was eventually disclosed by this check being embarked upon? Can I be told what happened in relation to people who had been overpaid? Was it simply a question of the money being repaid? Was there any question of deliberate intention to

defraud the Department? I should have thought it a little difficult to make a complete mistake over receiving the two payments, for entirely different purposes, of these grants when the early basis for payment was, in this case I think 1955, and under the present Scheme, 1957. The land had to be under grass, yet it was found that previously a deficiency payment in respect of oats or one of these other crops had been paid.
What happened in relation to the overpayments? Have there been any prosecutions in respect of them? We are entitled to know how far the Government intend to proceed in order to have the law respected in England and in Scotland, with which I am particularly concerned. I know quite well the kind of howl that would have gone up from hon. Members opposite if it were in respect of a widow living in a council house who had been giving false returns in respect of National Assistance. The National Assistance Board checks this kind of thing periodically. I can remember a widow in Kilmarnock who had been overpaid. She was taken to court and sent to prison. What kind of justice is administered in respect of this kind of thing, which involved far greater sums? At least £8,000 was involved in 1958. We do not know what it was last year and what it will be next year will be determined by the completeness of the check on the administration. Most of the farmers in Scotland would deplore a Scheme which was administered with such laxity and lack of check that he and the other taxpayers were so defrauded.
We on this side of the House are not unwilling to give consent to any Government Measure for the benefit of Scottish farming. We are proud of what we did for it between 1945 and 1951. We intend to continue to support the Government in every Measure which is reasonable. But not only must it be reasonable; it must be seen to be administered with fairness to the general body of taxpayers
I ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State to convince me and the House that the Scheme is desirable and, having done that, to assure me that the administration is such that money will not only not be poured into leaky buckets but will not be handed to those who are holding out buckets to receive money to which they are not entitled. I also ask that the Government's further


pursuit of any fraud will be such as to make the law about these subsidies respected.

11.42 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary hinted, I have participated in all the discussions we have had on these Schemes since we passed the 1952 Act, and I made many speeches during the passage of that Act. I have never liked these Schemes and I did not like the Act under which they were made. I cannot forget that the justification for the Act in 1952 was that we were desperately in need of increased agricultural production, and particularly of more land under the plough to produce the coarse grains which we could not buy from overseas to feed the fatstock we were trying to rear in increased numbers on our farms.
There have been many changes in the Government's agricultural policy since 1952, but for some reason or other they are able to continue these Schemes under the Act when the conditions which justified the Act in the first place have long since disappeared. After a few years the Schemes were adjusted to provide that ploughing grants should be paid notwithstanding that land was sown straight back to grass again. This year we have had a Price Review which makes it abundantly clear that Ministers are no longer interested in increased production from British farms. Increased productivity—yes; but increased production—no. And yet the grants continue.
What is the justification for them now? My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) called attention to some of the anomalies which arise under these Schemes. There is the farmer who, properly and wisely, in some parts of the country indulges in short leys of eighteen months, two years or two-and-a-half years—and he is cut out of the Scheme. Personally I am glad that such farmers are cut out, because I do not see why a farmer who finds it profitable and good farming to put land under grass for a year or eighteen months or two-and-a-half years should be paid £7 an acre for every acre of grass that is ploughed. But I can see no more justification for giving the grant to the farmer whose land is down for three or four years, which is the case in the

vast majority of acres which qualify for the £7 grant in Scotland every year.
I have said this so often that I feel a little guilty about saying it once again, but the majority of the fanners in Scotland know their business better than does the man in Whitehall. They know that it is good farming to indulge in rotational cropping of six to eight years' duration. They have three or four years in grass and three or four years in crops. All the good farmers in Scotland say that this is good husbandry in the land and climate that we have in that part of Scotland where arable farming is carried on.
Why should we give them £7 per acre every time they turn over an acre of grass three or four years old? It means that in nearly the whole of this arable farmland of Scotland we are paying out of the taxpayer's pocket £7 per acre for virtually every acre every six to eight years. By paying this money we do not get any additional acres brought into production; we get no more food; we do not produce any more coarse grain for feedingstuffs; we do not improve our grass in any way, because the farmers concerned tell us that they would not like their good husbandry to be spoiled by any bribes offered by the Government.
They say that these Schemes have had to be drawn so as to provide these regular grants to the vast majority of farmers who indulge in this rotational farming that involves them in ploughing every three to four years, so that they will get them for indulging in good husbandry and will not be obliged to indulge in an alternative form of husbandry which they think to be bad farming practice for the purpose of qualifying for the grants.
If we are to have a grant at all then it is better to have a grant which will not encourage farmers to do something which savours of bad husbandry. The truth is that any justification there ever was for the grant has long since disappeared.
I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will not take it amiss if I remind him that many of his hon. Friends who have deigned to participate in these debates over the years have always advised that at least the Part I grants should be discontinued. If there was any case for these grants, more Members, who are themselves farmers and represent


farming constituencies on the benches opposite, would rise to defend them.
Last year, the hon. Member for New-bury (Sir A. Hurd) appealed to the Parliamentary Secretary not to continue with these grants. I noticed that he rose in his place when my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) caught your eye, Mr. Speaker. He then disappeared from the Chamber, so we are not to have his appeal tonight to the Parliamentary Secretary to discontinue the grants and we are not, apparently, to have a speech from the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) who supported me in the last two years when similar Schemes were before the House.
When the Secretary of State for Scotland meekly and so wrongly followed the example of the Minister of Agriculture in withdrawing and then agreeing not to withdraw but substantially to reduce the marginal agricultural production grants, the Joint Under-Secretary of State will know that the N.F.U. in Scotland—the central organisation—after being heavily pressed in this matter by the county branches, appealed to the Secretary of State not to whittle down on the M.A.P. grants but to undertake any savings which the Exchequer wanted by reducing the ploughing grants. The National Farmers' Union of Scotland recognises that this is the least justifiable subsidy paid to the farmers by Her Majesty's Government. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will bear that in mind in any defence of this subsidy that he offers in the course of his remarks.
I entirely endorse all that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said about the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General in relation to this Scheme in Scotland. I was mindful of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) in relation to the Scheme in Scotland as well as in England and Wales. It would appear that the Secretary of State has had a substantial check in Scotland, and that 123 cases of over-payment of ploughing grants have come to light. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and I want to know in how many cases there have been prosecutions. I hope that hon. Members opposite will not think that we are callous and hard-hearted in asking about prosecutions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock is absolutely right. When any of our constituents is found to have defrauded the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance of a few shillings— perhaps a widow has forgotten to inform the Ministry of the fact that she has had a part-time job—she is not only invited to repay the money that she has been overpaid; in many cases she is prosecuted.

Mr. Ross: And not let off with a fine.

Mr. Fraser: No—prosecuted and, if found guilty, given a prison sentence.
Other cases concern the National Assistance Board. Perhaps an old-age pensioner has omitted to mention the fact that he has some hard-won savings. These people are prosecuted successfully. If the Joint Under-Secretary would like to ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, he will be able to find out in how many cases the penalty has been a prison sentence. Some of the people I have mentioned have acted inadvertently; they have not been aware that they were doing anything wrong in having a part-time job and still drawing these benefits. In other cases they have known they were doing wrong, but they have been doing it in order to live. I very much doubt whether, in any of the 123 cases which have come to light of farmers claiming ploughing grants in respect of land which has not been under grass, but in respect of which they have already got cereal deficiency payments, the action taken has been taken in order to live.
Justice should not only be done; it should manifestly be seen to be done. The action of Her Majesty's Ministers in relation to poor people who fall foul of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance or the National Assistance Board should at least be repeated by Her Majesty's Ministers who discover farmers or others who apply for subsidies from the public purse but make false returns. These people should be prosecuted in the same way as those mentioned by my hon. Friend are normally prosecuted. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us in how many of these 123 cases prosecutions followed the disclosure of overpayment, and whether the overpayment was reclaimed and repaid.
I wonder whether the Under-Secretary can speak for his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and tell us a little more about what is happening in England and Wales, because although Scottish farmers have come out of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General badly, that is only because in the Scottish Office it was possible to make a check. The Comptroller and Auditor General said that his officers also discovered a few overpayments of ploughing grants in England and Wales, and he asked whether the Ministry intended to make a check on a scale similar to that made in Scotland.
The Ministry reply was that whereas in Scotland both ploughing grants and cereal deficiency grants were administered centrally, in England and Wales claims for cereal deficiency grants were authorised by the Ministry at headquarters and ploughing grants were authorised by divisional officers. The Comptroller and Auditor General went on to say that the Ministry was saying that the administrative cost of carrying out a check on the Scottish scale would be high, because it would be necessary to transfer a large volume of the cereal deficiency claims to divisional offices for the check to be made, but the Report says that a pilot check is, therefore, being undertaken, oddly enough, not to see to what extent there were overpayments, but with the object of measuring the value of a check against the cost.
When poor Mrs. Jones is prosecuted because she has claimed £2 15s. more than she is entitled to receive from the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, that Ministry does not measure the cost of the legal advice it will employ to prosecute Mrs. Jones against the amount of overpayment that she has claimed.
It would be useful if the Under-Secretary could tell us more than the Parliamentary Secretary did about the work undertaken by the Ministry in this pilot check and to what extent the overpayments discovered by the officers of the Comptroller and Auditor General represent the kind of abuse of the Scheme which has been going on throughout the country—and there has been plenty of time to do it, because the Report relates to the 1958 Scheme.
A few years ago, when we were discussing a similar Scheme, I called attention to the ease with which farmers could falsify their returns. I recounted my own experience of a farmer who claimed the hill cattle subsidy in respect of 36 hill cattle. The inspector went to see them and thought that he saw 36 hill cattle. In fact, what he saw were 12 hill cattle on three different sides of the same hill. When I described that falsified return, hon. Members opposite howled me down and would not let me say that any farmer in Scotland would make any claim for subsidy to which he was not entitled. The Comptroller and Auditor General has confirmed what I anticipated on that occasion and has done so in respect of a fair number of farmers in Scotland.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North said, it is difficult for hon. Members to vote against this Scheme when it comes up each year, unless one takes the view that farmers are getting altogether too much from public funds. That is not how we feel. We appreciate that the net income of the farmers has gone down while their productivity and the total production has gone up and up, so that it is not for us to vote for a further reduction in their income. But it is our responsibility on these occasions to call attention to the misuse of public money by Her Majesty's Ministers. I beg the Joint Under-Secretary to give us an indication that Her Majesty's Ministers are reconsidering this Scheme and considering the termination of Part I grants at an early date, and making whatever adjustments are necessary in the other payments to farmers in the Price Review settlements. If he does that, not only will the taxpayers feel that he is facing his responsibilities but the farmers will feel that at long last the Government are giving help where it is most needed.

12.1 a.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn): We have had a wide-ranging and interesting debate on these Schemes and I shall try to answer as many of the questions which have been put as I can, and in particular those raised by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross).
The House knows that the impact of this grant is different in Scotland than in England. In Scotland the educational effect is less important. I use the term "educational effect" as it was used in the debate last year by the. hon. Member for Newbury (Sir A. Hurd). We traditionally practise rotational farming, and in saying that I am in no way criticising the English system of farming. It is merely that perhaps climatic conditions make it different for us in Scotland. However, I believe that the grant is no less important in Scotland than in the rest of the United Kingdom as a means of underpinning the general agricultural structure. It is an injection of money as determined by the annual Price Review, and I am sure that neither the hon. Member for Kilmarnock nor the hon. Member for Hamilton would expect me to give away Scotland's right to a share of this production grant.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) used the words, "some way to go". I do not recollect my hon. Friend using them bat I take the point made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North. I think it would be useful if I gave the figures for 1959 for England and Wales on the one hand and Scotland on the other with regard to tillage, temporary grass and permanent grass. In England and Wales there were 9,031,000 acres under tillage. The figure for temporary grass was 4,510,000 acres and for permanent grass 10,946,000 acres. The figures for Scotland were tillage, in round figures, 1,550,000 acres; temporary grass, 1,800,000 and permanent grass 1 million. Those figures illustrate that there is some way to go, certainly regarding England and Wales. If these grants were withdrawn in England and Wales there would be some chance of a slip back in the position.
I should like to say a word about Scotland and the Small Farmer Scheme. My hon. Friend illustrated how this is linked up with the ploughing grant. While the Scheme is not of the same importance in Scotland as in England and Wales, it is by no means negligible. We have received over 2,250 initial applications. About 1,500 detailed proposals have been submitted and 1,300 have been approved. This will bring

the small farmers a total of over £1 million in grant.

Mr. Ross: That is not in this Scheme.

Mr. Leburn: On the other hand, the two do link together, as my hon. Friend tried to show in his opening remarks. These units get ploughing grants when they put their grassland into rotation, and also get up to three years of cropping at £9 an acre field husbandry grant, so in the first year, they get £9 plus £7. I make that point in passing.
My hon. Friend, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, said that about half the applications in England and Wales are in respect of farms with less than 100 acres, and two-thirds for farms with less than 150 acres. Unfortunately, I do not have strictly comparable figures for Scotland, but I can say that 28 per cent. of grants last year went to farms classed as small—under £100 rental—and a furthec 31 per cent. to medium farms, with under £250 rental. So it is not just the big boys who cash in. It is fairly widespread throughout the community.

Mr. T. Fraser: When one looks at the number of small farmers in this country one sees that a high proportion farm under 100 acres. How would it be possible for either the Parliamentary Secretary or the Under-Secretary to yield any other figures than those they are producing at the present time?

Mr. Leburn: There has been a great deal of criticism that far too much of the money goes to the big farmers, whereas I am trying to demonstrate that there is a fairly widespread distribution and that a good share goes to the small farmers and medium farmers.
Turning to the question of over-payments raised by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and the hon. Member for Hamilton, first of all, I do not in any way under-estimate the seriousness of this whole business. The amount of wrong payments uncovered amounted to £11,751, relating to 159 applications. These are the figures I have.

Mr. Ross: The point is that when the Comptroller and Auditor General drew up his Report he could show the figures up to November only. Are these the complete figures or the latest?

Mr. Leburn: I understand that, so far as it is humanly possible to know, these are the complete figures. Virtually the


whole of this amount has been recovered. The estimate for the Scheme year 1958–59 provided for the payment of grants up to a total of £2,400,000, so incorrect payments amounted to one half of 1 per cent. of the total payments. That does not in any way excuse the fact of the one-half of 1 per cent., but it is right to keep the amount in perspective.
The wrong payments arose for the following reasons: first, acreages overstated were 56½, equalling £395 10s., and, secondly, acreages claimed which were not under grass for the requisite period amounted to about 1,620, equalling £11,355.
The hon. Member for Kilmaraock asked what happened to those farmers who had fraudulently claimed payment from the Department of Agriculture. As I say, most of the amounts have been recovered, but in a certain number of cases—I am sorry that I cannot give the exact number, but it is a comparatively small number, something like four, five, six or seven—the matter was reported to the legal authorities, but I am afraid I cannot tell the House what then happened. When my Department believes that fraud has taken place, it is our duty to report the matter to the Procurator Fiscal or to the appropriate legal authority, but there the responsibility of my Department in the matter ends. I know that the matter was reported where we believed that any question of prosecution for fraud arose. I can only say that having undertaken these most recent checks, I believe that the Scheme is now watertight as far as it is reasonably possible for any scheme to be watertight.

Mr. Ross: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me what happened in the case of fraud uncovered in respect of this matter in his own Department? He can surely tell me that.

Mr. Leburn: I do know that in that case the question was reported, but I do not think it is for me at this Box to report what happens when a prosecution takes place in the courts.

Mr. Ross: Did it?

Mr. T. Fraser: Surely what happened in that case is much more relevant to the passage of this Scheme than the number

of applications which have been made under the Small Farmer Scheme. Surely what has happened under this Scheme— these disclosures of the Comptroller and Auditor General that have caused these inquiries to be made and which have uncovered a good many other irregularities—are matters which the Undersecretary feels obliged to report to Parliament before he seeks assent of Parliament to the continuation of this Scheme?

Mr. Leburn: Whene we thought there were any reasons for reporting questions of fraud we did so. In other cases there were minor deficiencies of acreage, but we did not think that there was any question of deliberate fraud. But even where we do report cases it does not necessarily follow that because we in the Department think fraud may be involved, the legal authorities or the Procurator Fiscal take proceedings.

Mr. Fraser: Of course not, but does not the hon. Gentleman take the view that when he has about 159 persons —he gave us a figure which has not been reported so far as I know—who claim ploughing grant in respect of land which had not been down to grass for the minimum period of three years, these people were prima facie guilty of falsifying their returns and that every one of those farmers ought to be reported to the authorities for the purpose of prosecution?

Mr. Leburn: I could not necessarily accept that at all. I could not necessarily accept that there was a case of deliberately falsifying the returns. If I may return to the question of the official, I can report that he was prosecuted.

Mr. Ross: That is all I wanted to know.

Mr. Leburn: I understand that he went to prison.

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman referred to the figure of four, five, six or seven cases outstanding and he said that those were referred to the legal authorities but that he is not in a position to say what happened. Are we to understand that none of the people in the other cases was reported?

Mr. Leburn: I think I am right in saying, though I should like to check


it, that nothing happened in other cases, but in a small number of cases where, in our opinion, there was evidence of fraud reports were made to the law authorities.
I should like to answer some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). The hon. Member asked for the latest available figures for ploughing grants in Wales. He gave figures from the Digest of Statistics for 1958 as follows: leys, £770,000 paid for 109,527 acres; old grassland, £77,000 paid for 6,419 acres. The comparable figures for 1959 are: leys, £776,000 paid for 110,575 acres; old grassland, £83,000 paid for 6,916 acres. So there is at least a slight increase.
The hon. Member asked whether the Scheme could not apply for ploughing done in periods under three years. That would be impracticable, as I believe would be his sugestion that we should discriminate in some way in favour of the small farmer. There would be practical difficulties in this regard.
The hon. Member also asked whether my hon. Friend had been able to find a way of making the £12 grant under Part II of the Scheme more flexible. Unfortunately, I have not been able to consult my hon. Friend on this matter, but as he has brought forward a Scheme under Part II in exactly the same form this year as last year it is highly likely that he did not find that practicable.
On the question of raising appeals where someone feels aggrieved about the Part II grant being withheld, I feel that if the matter is left to the agricultural executive committees one can feel confident that they will fairly and conscientiously look at any question.
In conclusion, I must emphasise that the ploughing grant is a valuable incentive to a wide range of farmers. It encourages them to plough regularly, and, in consequence, better grassland should help us to feed our livestock more economically from home resources, so improving the competitive position of home agriculture in accordance with the Government's policy as set out in the Annual Price Review White Paper.
Criticism could be made against any production grant. A number of hon. Members have raised the point that farmers would carry on the operation with or without the grant. If we took off, for instance, the lime subsidy, I believe it could equally be argued that farmers could not afford to give up putting the amount of lime on their land which they are at present doing, but in practice to some extent they would, and I believe that to some extent they would cash in on the build-up fertility of the land.
The ploughing grant has its place, therefore, at the present time anyhow, in the general support structure as determined in the Price Review. But I want to make it clear that we are always reviewing these grants, and, certainly, I am sure that my hon. Friend and I will look very carefully into them again after what has been said tonight. With that, I hope very much that the Schemes will be approved.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Ploughing Grants Scheme, 1960, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th April, be approved.

Ploughing Grants (Scotland) Scheme, 1960 [draft laid before the House, 28th April], approved.—[Mr. Leburn.]

Orders of the Day — OIL BURNERS (STANDARDS) [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

[Major Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for minimum standards of efficiency and safety in respect of oil-burning appliances, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of such moneys by way of Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland.—[Mr. Vosper.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received this day.

Orders of the Day — CWMBRAN NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (APPOINTMENTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Colonel J. H. Harrison.]

12.22 a.m.

Mr. Leo Abse: It is with regret that I find it necessary in this Adjournment debate to draw attention to the authoritarian methods employed by the Minister in making recent changes in the membership of Cwmbran Development Corporation. I certainly have no desire to add to the burdens of the new chairman and two new members whose task has already been made difficult enough by the autocratic and tactless manner in which they have been appointed, but the protests that have already been made by the Cwmbran Urban District Council echo the feeling of so many within my constituency that they should be understood by the Minister in order that the manner of future appointments will not, I trust, follow this clumsy precedent.
When well-established local authorities find a new town being placed within their area they are naturally sensitive to any possible encroachments of their powers or duties. That the pride of local councils should make them jealous of their rights and functions is a healthy symptom not to be deplored. On the contrary, it is something to be welcomed in a lively democracy.
However necessary it may be, it is a fact that a nominated, salaried, governing body like a new town corporation charged to do work normally performed by local councillors, is an administrative eccentricity. Unless great care is taken, it will be regarded by local authorities with long traditions as an alien intruder. It is, therefore, particularly necessary, if the required co-operation between local authority, residents, tenants' associations, local community leaders and the new town corporation is to be achieved, that there must be widespread local confidence in the leadership of the board of the new town corporation.
In Lord Silkin's time as Minister, before appointments were made to the Cwmbran Corporation, nominations were first invited from all local organisations.

Many of those nominated were interviewed and the people who lived, or were to live, in the new town when the subsequent appointments were announced rightly felt that they had participated in those appointments. There may be valid arguments—although I do not subscribe to them—why councillors belonging to authorities actually within the designated area should not become members of the board, but there are no arguments for bringing about changes in the board, as in this case on 4th March, by the Minister peremptorily informing the elected representatives of the residents of the new town both of the changes in the board and the names of the new appointments without any previous consultation of any kind taking place.
The Minister will be aware that four years ago when the popular and able chairman of the board, a man with great experience, Mr. Huxley Turner, was suddenly replaced, the local authorities of the new town protested without avail. I know not who has been playing so purblind a Mephistopheles to the Minister's Faust; but when, following that storm, the present appointments are so awkwardly made the Minister must understand that his actions are bound to be regarded, even if they are not so intended, as provocative. When abrupt and inexplicable changes are made, suspicions of nepotism and political juggling inevitably smoulder.
In the present case, with the names presented to the local authority and already published in the Press, all the local authority was requested to do was to comment on the names. That surely is placing a council in an embarrassing and invidious position. It is not surprising that the Cwmbran Urban District Council protested that it wished to submit its own nominations and, after oral representations had been made, belatedly received that right from the Minister. The farcical character of the apparent concession of the Minister, however, has been revealed in his confirmation of the original nominations
This regrettable single-mindedness is made worse by the fact that the council indicated to the Minister that Lord Granville West might not have been unwilling originally to have accepted the chairmanship of the board provided he


would be able to waive the salary of £1,500 which Rear-Admiral Mickle-thwaite is now to receive. The ignoring of this hint to the Ministry is made more lamentable by the obvious fact that a chairman with the considerable calibre and experience possessed by Lord Granville West is urgently needed by a board at present bewildered by a Ministry that will neither give it a 3rm population target nor powers to take over land in the south-west designated area so that future planning may take place. Certainly a powerful chairman of Lord Granville West's stature was needed to ensure that the Ministry do not so continue to strangle the board. Certainly more strength is needed to ensure that the pathetic total of 300 houses which is the anticipated total to be built this coming year will not be an annual feature.
This is Community Week in Cwmbran New Town. It should be the aim of all to build among those coming into the new town the same strong sense of community that is the positive blessing of other townships and villages of the Eastern Valley of Monmouthshire.
I would advise the Minister that he will make his contribution to building up that community spirit if in any future changes on the board he will first invite nominations from all local organisations and give those nominations, before any announcements are made, the weighty consideration they will deserve. I further advise him that his dismissal without any justification from the board of so valuable a member as County Alderman Hutchings has wounded the Monmouthshire County Council which was not invited to make nominations and which has been and is so generous in its contribution in educational and other fields to the new town.
Although the Minister may not think so, I have spoken with what is moderation on these matters for someone with my temperament, for I do not desire to inflame further the exacerbation caused between local district councils and the new town corporation by these appointments. I trust, however, that the Ministry will take care never so to tinker further with the board that the county authority, apart from the district council, might not feel that it has a close and intimate relationship with the board. If

the already tenuous connection between the corporation and the county council were snapped, considerable harm would ensue.
If the Minister could say that in future a more democratic procedure will be adopted and if the new chairman and new members speedily show their sensibility to the needs of residents of the new town, to the necessity of good relations and the rights of the urban council, it may well be that this unhappy episode will not retard the achievement which I am sure all of us here are confident the new town will enjoy.

12.29 a.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Henry Brooke): I recognise that the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) has spoken with moderation. Having read some of the sentiments he is said by the newspapers to have expressed, I thought that he might have been much more violent this evening and that I should be cast for the rôle of Mephistopheles and not only for that of Faust.
His raising the subject tonight enables me, and, I think, obliges me, to tell the House what was the procedure which has been followed by my predecessors since the original formation of the corporations, when, I grant, it was different. Although I may take up a few minutes, I should like to do so.
Responsibility is placed directly by the 1946 Act on the Minister to appoint the board, and the Minister, according to that Act, shall make the appointment after consultation with such local authorities as appear to him to be concerned with the development of the new town.
Naturally, the appointments are subject to review from time to time, and I have made it my business since I have been Minister to carry out that review every two years. That is the system. It imposes on the Minister a duty which I certainly take very seriously. Like my predecessors, I have thought it right that from time to time there should be changes in the composition of the corporations. Cwmbran is not unique in that. Changes have been made elsewhere.
It stands to reason that the progress made in the development of a town


from the beginning to the later stages will itself demand changes in the kind of experience and ability that should be required in the corporation which is the governing body. However good a team may be it needs, from time to time, new blood. I suggest that is more important in the building of a new town than perhaps in any other enterprise. I trust that there will be no difference of opinion in the House about the desirability of making occasional changes in any body. That is a view taken by the selection committee of the Welsh Rugby Union, if I may make a local comparison.
I agree that it would be unwise to make changes too frequently or on such a scale as to destroy continuity, because continuity is extremely important in building up a new town. When changes take place it means that some existing member or members stand aside, and that is the only way in which new people can be given the opportunity of making their contributions to the new town.
If at any time I feel unable to continue the appointment of some member of a development corporation of a new town it does not mean to say by any means, or in any sense, that his membership has not been satisfactory. It simply means that, in the Minister's view, from time to time there should be some new people joining the board —and they can do that only when there are vacancies
The story of recent events—and I should like them to be put on the record—is that Lady Rhys-Williams, the former chairman, in discussion informed me that she felt she should resign. She realised that the building of the town was likely to entail several years more work and that she would be unable to see it to its end. I am glad to take this opportunity in the House of paying tribute to the service rendered to the new town by Lady Rhys-Williams. She brought great vigour and experience to the appointment and Cwmbran will always have cause to be grateful to her, as I am.
Two other members of long standing left the board—Mr. Percy Jones and Alderman Hutchins—and I also express my gratitude to both of them for their long and devoted service to the town.

In replacing these three retiring members, I proposed to appoint Admiral Micklethwait to the vacant chairmanship and Mr. Duncan Alexander and Mrs. Rees as members of the corporation. I should have thought that the mere names of those three people would alone have sufficed to silence any of the rumours of nepotism or political juggling to which the hon. Member referred.
As the hon. Member said, the Cwmbran Urban District Council, when I fulfilled my statutory duty of consulting it, indicating the people I had it in mind to appoint and inviting its comments, said that it would like a discussion. Members came to see officers of my Department and explained that they thought that they could make better suggestions. I considered carefully what they said and every name which they put forward, but I decided, not lightly but after due thought, that no grounas had been advanced on which I ought to change my preliminary view and withdraw the proposals which I had made. As the hon. Member knows, all these three new appointments have been made during the past few weeks.
The hon. Member concentrated his speech, I realise, not on personalities— which I do not think any of us wish to discuss in the House—but on the issue of consultation with local authorities. I still think that what I did, in line with what my predecessors have done, is the most effective and satisfactory method of consultation. The Statute requires consultation, but it does not prescribe any method of consulting local authorities.
It is true, as I have said and as the hon. Member has said, that when the development corporation was first set up the Minister of the day invited the local authorities to put forward names of candidates for appointment, but when it is not a question of finding a complete new corporation but of filling vacancies in the existing body, the situation is rather different, and since that early stage of establishing a new corporation the invariable practice has been for the Minister of the day to put his own proposals to the local authorities and to ask for their comments. I assure the hon. Member that I was creating no


precedent in what I did but was following the general practice, established long before I became the responsible Minister.
There is good reason for this practice, because in any consultation of this sort somebody has to begin by thinking of names and by putting proposals on paper, and it seems to me that when it is a case of filling vacancies that task is best done by the Minister who is ultimately responsible to Parliament for the appointments and for the management and development of the town. When it is only a question of filling vacancies it must be the Minister who is in a better position than the local authority concerned to know what type of qualification or qualifications the Board needs at any time, what are its strengths and what are its weaknesses; and he is answerable to Parliament. It seems common sense that when there are vacancies the Minister should say what kind of experience he wants to secure.
The hon. Member said quite truthfully that Cwmbran Urban District Council felt that it had better ideas. It thought that a larger representation of its own body should be considered and it made various other suggestions. It is the case that the representation of the local council at Cwmbran is larger than on any other development corporation; indeed, it is generally found—and I am responsible for twelve new towns—that to be a member of the local district council and also a member of a development corporation involves a certain tension, through a possible conflict of loyalties. Anyone who has served on a local authority, as I have, must be conscious of that possibility.
I am very grateful to those members of local authorities who have served or are serving on the development corporations of one new town or another, but the tasks which face local authorities, as elected bodies answerable to their own ratepayers, and those which face the development corporations, as bodies appointed by me and answerable to me, through Parliament, are often different, and the interests of the two can diverge.
I do not want to make too great a point of this. I would only say that it is something of which I have become aware. I recognise from my experience

of many local councils that there will often be found abilities and experience which can be of great value to development corporations, and yet I hope that I carry the House with me when I say that in view of the possible divergencies of interest it would be a mistake to have too many representatives of one local council serving on a particular corporation. On the Cwmbran Development Corporation, as now constituted, there are two members of the urban district council and three members of local authorities, and that seems to me to give proper weight to the need for contact between the local government and the development corporation.
I will not go into the individual qualifications of the members who are being appointed. The hon. Member did not pursue that point. The persons are well known in their own spheres. I would just like to say that it seemed to me to be of considerable importance to secure that there should be at least one woman on the corporation, and from my knowledge of the lady whom I appointed, and from what I was aware of her public and voluntary service in the county and her personal devotion to the new town, I felt sure that she would be a suitable and valuable member of the corporation.
I think the hon. Member knows that I took seriously the names put forward by the urban district council; indeed, one of those people I would have been ready to appoint had circumstances allowed. It was circumstances beyond my control that caused me reluctantly to come to the conclusion that it would be impossible for me to appoint that individual. Again, unless the hon. Member presses me, I will not go into details in public, but I would like to say that had circumstances outside my control allowed me to do so I should have been very glad to add to the Board one of those people whom the urban district council recommended.
I have been Minister for more than three years, and have long been aware that when decisions of this sort have to be taken no Minister can reasonably expect to produce a solution which pleases everybody. Having listened to all the advice available to him all he can hope to do is to seek to achieve the result that he believes to be best in the public interest, as he sees it. That is what I


have tried honestly to do in the case of these appointments, for which Parliament has made me responsible.
The hon. Member has described me as tactless, autocratic and authoritarian. He is at liberty to voice his own view of me. Parliament knows me, too, and I have to defend myself in Parliament, as I am seeking to do, just as the hon. Member has been exercising his Parliamentary rights to voice his own feelings here.
I am confident that all the members of the development corporation, new and old, will work together successfully for the good of the town and the people of Cwmbran. After all, the well-being of

Cwmbran and the citizens of Cwmbran far outweighs any difference of opinion between him and me. We are puny things in comparison with the new town which is growing up there.
I sincerely hope that, having expressed his view and put it on the record, the hon. Member will exercise his considerable influence as Member of Parliament for much of Cwmbran in support of the efforts of the development corporation to make Cwmbran an even better town than it already promises to be.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to One o'clock.